One of the posted schemes (in fact, the one that prompted me to post here) involves paying yourself a $5000 consulting fee, then writing the whole thing off as a travel expense. Unless one can prove that this is an ordinary and necessary expense, then it is not legal to do. The tax professionals were not talking about this part, I don't believe.

Nonetheless, it's also against the merchant agreements of the credit cards. But I suppose that's not enough to warrant being closed - see the Wal-Mart thread. But I wonder why we only care about the rules around here when it may come around to bite us or when it has to do with the airlines.

I'm certain that lots of people will come back and say that this is the nature of FT - to find loopholes and use them. But the people who say this are confusing the idea of a loophole.

A loophole is generally defined as a way through or around a contract or deal, thanks to an omission or ambiguity in the contract or rules. Using mileage-earning debit cards to buy money orders, for example, was a loophole, because Bank of America did not specifically prohibit the activity.

Wal-Mart doesn't allow their gift cards to be cashed out. Credit cards don't allow you to charge your own credit card as a merchant. These, therefore, are not loopholes, because they are directly against the rules. There is no omission or ambiguity.

I'm certain, though, that the vast majority of people here don't really care, until it hurts them somehow.

I'm done. Period.

Mike