So You Want to Submit Something to Going Concern…

Posted on May 11, 2011 by Adrienne Gonzalez

Since Caleb is really bogged down chasing misinformed merger rumors and babysitting his contributor(s), I thought I’d take a moment to set some ground rules for reader contributions. We get that question via e-mail a lot and, as you may notice, very rarely publish reader submissions. Let me tell you why.

First, if you expect us to publish something, how about you start by recognizing the tone of this website? We try our best not to waste our readers’ time with bullshit press releases, fluff pieces, and the usual PR crap that other accounting websites are built around. That is not what we do here and we aren’t going to start now so please, don’t bother. If you can’t take the time to acknowledge the voice of this website and respect the attention span of our readers, we aren’t going to take the time to read the crap you have sent us. If you send us an unsolicited email that looks like it could have gone out to every other accounting website out there, we know you aren’t a fan of the site and have no idea how we roll. Therefore, odds are pretty good that we will ignore your request. You’ve been warned.

Second, this ain’t no motherfucking Wiki. Meaning we are more than happy to publish reader material (still waiting for Bitter Audit Manager’s resignation letter) but beyond the comments, this is not a collaborative venture. Caleb writes, I write, you guys berate us, we adjust future content appropriately… you get the point. We invite you to contribute through criticism, suggestions and, of course, by tipping us to where the news is. And if you have a point to make and want to use this avenue to make it, you are more than welcome to do so, just make sure you come at us correctly. Which brings me to my next point…

It takes a lot of alcohol and therapy to do this day in and day out. Caleb and I try our best to bring you what you want and take our job seriously. If you have a submission, we expect that it fits with the overall attitude of this website. We have stringent quality requirements (Caleb’s rampant typos excluded, of course) related to the tone we work hard to maintain.

Self-deprecating humor earns points with us, as does bitterness, honesty, cleverness and general brilliance. We have no patience for uptight professionalism and anal-retentive seriousness, you can find plenty of that on other accounting websites.

So if you still want to submit something to us to publish, keep these things in mind. Shoot us a note and include your submission but please, save all of us the bother if you can’t respect these simple rules.

News
Tax

That Orangey Glow Will Be a Little More Expensive Today as Tanning Tax Takes Effect

Caleb Newquist
July 1, 2010

Everyone in the melanoma-for-sale business is perplexed about the tanning tax that goes into effect today and the Journal reports that the hella confusion is mostly about why some businesses are able to dodge the tax while others are not.

Case in point, health clubs get to offer their George Hamilton specials tax free while video stores (?) that offer tanning do not.

When Jeanne Chamberlain turns up at work Thursday, she’s going to have to grapple with America’s first federal tax on tanning services, a 10% levy designed to help pay for Congress’s health-care overhaul.

Ms. Chamberlain runs a video-rental store.

These would normally be unrelated facts, but 20 years ago, Ms. Chamberlain followed a number of her peers in adding tanning services to smooth out the bumps in her Rice Lake, Wis., business. Today, she wants to offer one free tan for every three rentals. Should that freebie be taxed? Ms. Chamberlain doesn’t know, and even if she did, she doesn’t yet have the software in place to help with the calculations.

For starters, video stores still exist? We had just assumed that they had gone out with powdered wigs. Netflix, Hulu, etc. etc. And since when do they offer tanning services? “Oh I see you’ve got Gigli there, great choice. Would like to hop in one of our tanning beds while I rewind the tape?”

Anyway, back to the tax:

Among the new details: “qualified physical fitness facilities” that include access to tanning beds as part of their membership fee won’t be subject to the tax.

That means customers at Sun Tan City in Owensboro, Ky., will pay 10% more for a dose of ultraviolet rays. But if they go to Anytime Fitness 100 yards away, and tan inside one of its two beds, they’ll escape.

“My jaw dropped,” said Rick Kueber, founder and chief executive of Sun Tan City, a 124-outlet chain based in Elizabethtown, Ky. Then he got to thinking. “If I had six treadmills in each of my stores, can I call myself a health club?”

Can anyone explain this? Our best guess is that since health clubs force you to get you off your ass, while video stores put you back on them, they’re getting a break. That seems to be pretty advanced for Congress logic but we’ll assume that it’s in the ballpark.

But It’s really NBD for the committed to skin cancer crowd however, “[Fifteen-year-old Grace] McCleary and others who lounged last week in the notorious Land of the Tanned – see MTV’s Jersey Shore – said a few dollars tacked on wouldn’t deter them.”

Fortunately, the IRS has advice (as it always does) for those affected and our resident tax sage, Joe Kristan has the details. So, there’s no risk to the industry as a whole – thank god – just a little extra bureaucracy in the pot in the form of Form 720. Enjoy!

Federal Tan Tax Burns Some Badly but Keeps Everybody in the Dark [WSJ]
Tanning-bed enthusiasts say tax won’t deter them [Philadelphia Inquirer]