Absurdity of the day
There are times when my tax class makes me laugh. The curious thing is that I appear to be the only one in the class who finds these bits funny. One piece particularly caught my eye today, though.
When computing the gain or loss made in regard to a sale of property for a business, say, one might expect to use a particular section that tells you how to compute gains and losses (which we've studied already). However, in applying that gain/loss computation section, you modify it using a regulation which we learned today.
Calculating a gain or a loss is pretty intuitive. It comes right out of basic elementary school level arithematic. If I buy a truck for $20,000 and sell it for $15,000, I have sold it at a loss of $5,000. If I buy the truck at $20,000 and sell it for $30,000, I have sold it for a gain of $10,000. Simple, right?
Why this came out as absurdly hilarious in my mind is that when calculating a gain or loss under this combination of a statute provision and a regulation, it just so happens that you can end up calculating for a gain or a loss and end up with neigher occuring. We literally had on the board a set of subtraction problems where we were subtracting a number from another non-identical number and getting an answer of zero. And even more perplexing to anyone with a background in elementary school level math, when we reversed the order of the numbers (subtracted the first number from the second number) we still came out with zero.
That, people, is not the way that numbers work. Anywhere. Ever. If I subtract 1,000 from 4,000, I do not expect to get zero. If I subtract 4,000 from 1,000, I do not expect to get zero. Why?
Because numbers follow particular rules, and the application of those rules is universal across all times and spaces. That assumption is the only way that arithematic can be understood as having any validity. To an income tax lawyer, though, the universal principles of mathematics can simply take a flying leap out the window.
Hilarious.
When computing the gain or loss made in regard to a sale of property for a business, say, one might expect to use a particular section that tells you how to compute gains and losses (which we've studied already). However, in applying that gain/loss computation section, you modify it using a regulation which we learned today.
Calculating a gain or a loss is pretty intuitive. It comes right out of basic elementary school level arithematic. If I buy a truck for $20,000 and sell it for $15,000, I have sold it at a loss of $5,000. If I buy the truck at $20,000 and sell it for $30,000, I have sold it for a gain of $10,000. Simple, right?
Why this came out as absurdly hilarious in my mind is that when calculating a gain or loss under this combination of a statute provision and a regulation, it just so happens that you can end up calculating for a gain or a loss and end up with neigher occuring. We literally had on the board a set of subtraction problems where we were subtracting a number from another non-identical number and getting an answer of zero. And even more perplexing to anyone with a background in elementary school level math, when we reversed the order of the numbers (subtracted the first number from the second number) we still came out with zero.
That, people, is not the way that numbers work. Anywhere. Ever. If I subtract 1,000 from 4,000, I do not expect to get zero. If I subtract 4,000 from 1,000, I do not expect to get zero. Why?
Because numbers follow particular rules, and the application of those rules is universal across all times and spaces. That assumption is the only way that arithematic can be understood as having any validity. To an income tax lawyer, though, the universal principles of mathematics can simply take a flying leap out the window.
Hilarious.
posted by The Academian | 1:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home