<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Bostonist: Did You Participate in Jordan&apos;s Furniture Monster Deal? Time to Cash In</title>
<link>http://bostonist.com/2007/10/29/did_you_partici_1.php</link>
<description>All comments for Did You Participate in Jordan&apos;s Furniture Monster Deal? Time to Cash In</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2009 rickbang</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:29 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>rick@bostonist.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>rick@bostonist.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>aging cynic</title>
<link>http://bostonist.com/2007/10/29/did_you_partici_1.php#comment-1226693</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://bostonist.com/2007/10/29/did_you_partici_1.php#comment-1226693</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:18:30 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Didn&apos;t the buyers spend already-taxed money on the furniture? I can see where a 1099 would be appropriate for the hotel Tatelman mentioned, since it would have been a deductible expense for them. But why private buyers? Using that reasoning, every time I get a really good buy at Building 19, I owe tax on the savings if someone called them a &quot;prize&quot; rather than just a lower price. And the government wonders why some people try to evade the IRS....&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>