- quote -

I am not advocating anything here, but in the real world,
the IRS is not going to "notice" anything. They only monitor
rising incomes systemically and unless it is assigned to the
most efficient Revenue Officer on earth, it will go
un-noticed. And since no RO is going to have this taxpayer
in their caseload for the six months to a year it would take
to do it, it is NOT going to happen. Furthermore, there are
a lot of reasons a person's incomes can drop. Just ask about
400 people at Radio Shack.

Mike Wellman
irsos.com

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -

Fair enough; however, in this context, since the IRS already
has the past history of what the employee was being paid, it
will notice at the latest when the next tax return comes in
and, mirabile dictu, the employee has almost no income.
Next thing they'll do is find out if reality fits return and
see if his standard of living has dropped. If not, they're
going to get real nosey real quick.

If you're really thinking of trying this, you might go do a
few practice perp walks so you can figure out how to hold
your jacket over your face while hand-cuffed and still look
cool.

Have fun

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Temprock[at]hotmail.com wrote:
- quote -

Actually Dick, since levies arrive in the mail, there's
really no IRS person looking over the employer's shoulder,
so it does have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. NOT
that I'm advocating it of course.

In my experience, I've never had a client employer who had
to fulfill a levy since said employee is always a former
employee.

ChEAr$,
Harlan

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

As a practical matter, the employer can miss the first pay
period without any enforcement implications. That will give
most employees/taxpayers plenty of time to deal with the
matter and get the levy lifted - if that is their intent. I
prefer this straight forward approach to all the games.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Temprock[at]hotmail.com wrote:
- quote -

If not accepted for criminal prosecution, something this
transparent would likely be successfully pursued as a civil
failure to honor levy suit.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

why not go all the way, and terminate the employee, and then
have him work and get paid under the table? Jeez!

==========
Moderator:
One more conspiracy to obstruct the IRS!

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Mike Wellman wrote:
- quote -

I'm NOT endorsing this in any way shape or form. Person's
wages attached for IRS liability. Friendly long-time
employer immediately cuts wages to the bone, all Forms then
filled-out (true when completed) followed by a very low (or
no) interest "loan" to the employee to in large part replace
"cut" wages.

Again I'm not suggesting this is remotely kosher but
interested in everyone's analysis of exposure (if any).

Thanks (I'm neither an employee or an employer except of
myself!!!)

==========
Moderator:
I would put the probability of the IRS catching this change
in income as extremely high. It is difficult to believe an
accounting employee would participate once an IRS agent
starting asking questions.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

lesstax wrote:

- quote -

No, you are thinking of a bank levy. The employer must give a copy of
the levy to the employee, who then has 3 days to complete the
withholding information on it and return it to the employer. The
employer is to begin honoring the levy the next pay period.

Mike

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

as i recall the employer has 21 days b4 he must act on this
levy notice.

am i right?

thanks,
the hawk

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >