- quote -

Likewise in Alabama. I reckon there are some things we're
more efficient (at)..... "at which we're more efficient".

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA in LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Not so in he were in Georgia. They do these audits fairly
quickly.

Carol

If you awoke to find yourself a success, you weren't asleep.
Semper Gumby (Always Flexible)

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

What were you making an hour? Take that times the number of
hours you worked? Was this the amount of your check? If so,
you should have questioned it from day one. If not, you
should have questioned why you were not getting a paystub.
To fix it. If the first assumption was correct, you can
probably get the department of labor and industry to audit
this guy, but this is not going to get you your
unemployment, as that will take a year or so. There really
is no other way around it.

Helen, EA in PA
Member of The Tax Gang
President, PA Society of Enrolled Agents
Campaigning for NAEA Board of Directors - Looking for YOUR vote

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Harlan Lunsford <hlunsfordns[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act only requires employers to
keep accurate records of hours worked and wages paid. It does
not require an employer to provide the employee a pay stub.
One would need to look to each State's labor laws to see whether
a pay stub is required.

Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Harlan,

To my knowledge, Georgia does not have a law like that.

Carol
If you awoke to find yourself a success, you weren't asleep.
Semper Gumby (Always Flexible)

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

CLJ1219 wrote:

- quote -


Just for that, I task you, Carol, with determining if
Georgia has such a law.

Cheer$

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

If there is such a federal law, I don't know where it would
be. Certainly not covered in Circular E, and understandably
so, since it's not within IRS's purview to dictate
employee/employer relations , except in tax matter.

Most really small companies wouldn't know anyway if it WERE
required.

C$,
HL

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Charles Markham, EA wrote:
- quote -

(snipped about statements not being required.)

- quote -

I would agree with you IF there had been an agreement on
wages to be gross or net at time of hire. But sometimes a
person is hired, and the employer asks me to do what I have
to; he's going to get $1,700 per month take home Not
gross; not net; but "take home." Of course after gtting
the W-4 and A-4 (or G-4) form, then I can gross up the net
pay.

We can't say to the OP that he really told us what his gross
was supposed to be. But if an electrician, and esp if a
union man, he should have known hourly pay, and therefore
put on notice. "Caveat employee!"

Cheer$,
HL

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsfordns[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

Still he didn't notice that the paycheck equaled gross
earnings?

--
David M. Woods, EA
Boston, MA 02109

Postings here are general information only and not to be
relied upon as advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

<G
Carol

If you awoke to find yourself a success, you weren't asleep.
Semper Gumby (Always Flexible)

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Harlan Lunsford wrote:

- quote -

Confirm California. It's required on the paystub or
equivalent statement distributed with the check.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsfordns[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

I agree that the detail is sometimes not provided, but let's
say you work 10 hrs for $20 an hour. Now the employer
either gives you a check for $200 or something less. If he
gives you $200, well, he's not taking taxes out, is he?

I'm sorry. There may be the occassional truly innocent
person, but I will be you a dime to a dollar this guy knew
full well he was being paid in full--and if he was withheld,
then he's got a completely different problem.

Charles Markham, EA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

Unless one has no idea what they earn per hour and believe
it is a great deal more than actual, the difference between
gross and net is usually substantial, especially for a
full-time employee. It would be difficult to believe he
didn't know.

I thought it was a Federal law that full disclosure be
provided with each paycheck. The reason I recall this is
because when the requirement for FICA reporting was split
between SS & Medicare, I believe it was for each paycheck
rather than just the annual W2.

--
Sincerely,
Joanne

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Harlan Lunsford" <hlunsfordns[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

I always thought that employers were required to furnish
statements with each wage payment. I've worked for
companies in Oregon, California, and Hawaii -- all provided
statements. I know Hawaii requires employers to pay their
employees twice a month and to provide a statement of wages
paid and amounts withheld. Since Hawaii usually models this
kind of legislation on California, I would assume that
statements are required there, too. I'm not sure about
Oregon.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dave Woods, EA wrote:
- quote -

Very possible, since there's no law requiring employers to
furnish gross/withholding information to employees. Most
large ones do, as we know, and perhaps that MIGHT be some
liberal state somewhere (Oregon? Washington? California?)
which requires such a statement.

(remainder snipped)

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA in LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

I agree with others who wondered why you just noticed this
now--either your "paycheck" has tax withholding or it
doesn't. (Oh, I'm sorry was this all cash?)

Anyway, you have an unemployment problem not a tax problem.
Here in Massachusetts, you file a claim anyway. You state
that the employer mis-classified you and that you want
unemployment benefits. They hold hearings, but the workers
usually win.

Charles Markham, EA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

<M6J7[at]webtv.net> wrote:

- quote -

Call your friendly IRS office. If you were an employee
rather than a truly independent contractor, the employer
should have to pay the tax. However you are supposed to pay
half of the social security and all of the income tax thru
withholding. Whether the IRS would help you with the
employee portion or not, I don't know.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"M6J7[at]webtv.net" <M6J7[at]webtv.net> wrote:

- quote -

And you're just noticing this now?

- quote -

You have a labor department problem not a tax problem. You
may have tax issues but they are not related to your claim
for unemployment being denied. If you worked for a
contractor, likely you are also a contractor and thus, not
an employee who can claim benefits.

--
David M. Woods, EA
Boston, MA 02109

Postings here are general information only and not to be
relied upon as advice.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

<M6J7[at]webtv.net> wrote:

- quote -

If this were a Colorado employer, I have no doubt he will be
audited by Colorado Department of Labor as a result of your
claim. Your contractor status would be changed to employee
and the employer would owe all the appropriate taxes.

You will probably receive a 1099 at the end of the year
because these things take time to audit and get corrected.
Talk to your local tax professional. He may suggest that you
attach a substitute W2 to your return and also enter the
1099 value on schedule C with a deduction for the same
amount to satisfy the matching process by the IRS for the
1099.

I think I would gross the wages up to include the FICA so
the amount you actually received would have been the net
after FICA was withheld. Your tax professional may have a
different view of this.

If your state isn't as aggressive as Colorado regarding
employment status, insist that your Department of Labor
audit this employer.

And most important, for all future employment, insist on the
withholding stub. If you are an electrician you are a
bright person. Did you really believe taxes were being
withheld?

--
Sincerely,
Joanne

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

<M6J7[at]webtv.net> wrote:

- quote -

See IRS Publication 15A (not 15) for a checklist that can be
used to verify whether you were an employee instead of a
contractor.

If you believe you should have been classified as an
employee file form SS-8 with the IRS. You will still have
to pay the employee's share of all taxes.

__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet [at] AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->