A 1099 does not create a tax liability. Absence of a 1099 does not eliminate tax liability. Banks make errors, they do not change the tax laws. If new account bonuses were taxable everyone would receive a 1099, but the fact that most of us have not suggests that there is an error in the software that includes new account bonuses when some other condition is also met. The nationality of the employees at Chase's call center tells us nothing about where the data was processed.
Chase offered an
upgrade bonus on Marriott cards. Did those include a spend requirement? Have they been reported?
An error on a 1099 is a nuisance for those who already use a professional tax preparer, but it's more of a problem for those who do their own returns.
Originally Posted by
rrgg
If you think the work-performed argument overrides all of this, why do you think Citi has this requirement?
To encourage existing cardholders to use the card, rather than letting it sit idle while generating referral bonuses.
It used to be that retention bonuses had no spending requirement, but now a spending requirement is common. This transition did not seem to have any connection to tax policy, but I could have missed it.