In article <xxjdl.6352$G24.4719[at]bignews6.bellsouth.net> ,
Paul Thomas, CPA <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

If he didn't understand it, that's more evidence that he's
unqualified.

Seth

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 20, 5:36*pm, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...[at]bellsouth.netwrote:
- quote -

I have been to too many closings myself. I am actually the bane of the
title attorneys, because I do read everything myself. One closing took
over four hours.

I have also filled out paperwork for seven different employers in the
last 15 years.

There is a huge difference in the complexity of the forms you fill out
in these two circumstances.

I happen to know two people who work for the World Bank. One of them
got caught in exactly this trap. She didn't deny that she knew she was
supposed to pay the SE taxes. She had six years less education than
Mr. Geithner. Geithner was probably more hurried when he filled out
the paperwork, I'll grant you that.

I guess I will ask the good folks on this board a question. How does
the IRS draw the line between a simple deficiency and tax fraud/
evasion? Isn't "playing the audit lottery" in and of itself tax
evasion? Or do you have to do something else?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

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

- quote -

In my line of work it is sometimes suggested that one signs
a patent application without having a chance to read the
entire (often voluminous) document. Legally, this is a big no-no,
and you would look pretty stupid during a deposition or litigation
admitting that you never read the document you signed. I can only
imagine it does not work in your favor.


Steve

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"TheMightyAtlas" <themightyatlast[at]gmail.com> wrote
- quote -




I've been to two closings in six months. Both times the attorney would give
a 15 second explanation of what *this* page means before sliding it over the
table for me to sign. I'm quite sure that I didn't read every line on every
page, which means I am equally sure I don't fully understand all the
potential ramifications of the papers I signed. That does not, however,
relieve me of my obligations under the terms of the loans or anything else
related to the properties.

I'm just pointing out that we sign a lot of stuff in a day without fully
understanding what the implications might be, or remembering some obscure
matter six months later when tax returns are being prepared.

Yes, he should have known about the tax issues regarding his pay. Yes,
even if he did err on his returns, he should have fixed them back as far as
he needed to once the error was brought to his attention.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

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



Clergy also compute SE tax (but not income tax) on their housing allowance.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

TheMightyAtlas wrote:

- quote -


ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan wrote:
- quote -

see their W2 forms. They, too, have to pay their own SE taxes.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 20, 7:37*am, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...[at]bellsouth.netwrote:
- quote -

I wonder how this standard works out for people who aren't nominees
for cabinet posts? "I signed it but I didn't know what it meant."
Wouldn't he need to at least raise this as an affirmative defense
against a fraud allegation?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

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





You've been down roads like that before. It only proves he received and
signed for the papers. Now, if there was a test on the subject, that might
provide some insight into what he understood.





--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Thanks, I now see that this is in Section 15 of Publication 15.

This information makes me feel slightly more lenient towards
the recipient of such a W-2.

Steve

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
- quote -

receipt of extra funds to cover the added SE tax and further attested
that he understood how it was to be reported.

- quote -

betting on the fact that IRS would not go back any further.

- quote -

It was already clear to him back that first year of 2001 when he
received the extra funds, as indicated by the signed documents I
referred to above.

- quote -

Whether he did or did not see it as being self employed we can't say.
At this point I kinda doubt he had any understanding of the differences
between employee and non employee. Just because you know a lot about
finance, doesn't mean one is tax savvy.

But we are all agreed that he evaded his responsibilities.

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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Steve Pope wrote:
- quote -

exempt from employment taxes and employment tax withholding
issues a W-2 to its US employees. The employee is responsible
for filing Schedule SE to pay both halves of the employment
taxes. The employer half is deductible as an adjustment to income.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Paul Thomas, CPA <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:

- quote -

Thanks. I wonder how you do that -- put it under "miscellaneous
income" on the 1040 rather than on Schedule C? Seems like
you'd have to do some sort of contortion (or whoever prepared
the return would), to end up in such a spot.

Steve

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Steve Pope" <spope33[at]speedymail.org> wrote in message
news:gl2eoq$v6$2[at]blue.rahul.net...
- quote -

given the problem was widespread, it seems there was much misunderstanding.
He wasn't really self employed for one thing. And, if he was simply
mistaken, the earlier years not covered by the audit were not covered
because the statute of limitations had passed. If the IRS thought they
could prove evasion, thus overcoming the statute of limitations, they
certainly could have done so.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Steve Pope" <spope33[at]speedymail.org> wrote
- quote -


Let's be clear here. He did report the income, but he reported it as ~not~
subject to SE tax.
So it's more of an improper reporting / misclassification issue than
anything else.





- quote -



All agreed that he should have taken corrective measures back when it first
became clear as to the tax treatment of that income.




- quote -



He most likely didn't see it as being self-employed. After all, he was
treated as an employee by that entity, not as a self-employed "contractor".






--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"paultry" <afn02552at[at]afn.org> wrote in message
news:gl2gh6$51l$1[at]news.motzarella.org...
- quote -


I am inspired by the fact that even guys like this find taxes quite complex,
and that he availed himself of the statute of limitations for his first
couple of tax years in question.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

[ Secretary of the Treasury ]

- quote -

The facts are Geithner had self-employment revenue that he did
not report. Further when an audit determined (as was obvious)
it should have been reported, he stalled on taking corrective
action for years not covered by the audit.

As a self employed person who has reported every penny of my
self-employment revenue for many years, I am offended by
Geithner's appointment. You do not "accidentally" not
report revenue. You are required to keep track of your
revenue if you are self-employed. It's probably the single
most important record-keeping and reporting requirement there is.
And common sense says that a person knows when they have
revenue, as they get a check or the money otherwise appears
in their bank account, after having engaged in activity
expected to generate revenue. How could a competent
person be unaware of it? It may not be provable fraud/evasion --
that can only be determined by a court -- but based on what
is publically known it can comfortably be said it was not proper.

Steve

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<emilydwoods[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7ee5ca1-e858-4da8-8b75-0a8e71ac3861[at]u13g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

I'll be as straight forward as I can be - this is as illegal as I've ever
seen or heard of.

The employer's share of FICA and the related unemployment taxes are just
that - THE EMPLOYER'S SHARE. There are a few jurisdictions - NJ comes to
mind - that allow employees to pay into a supplemental unemployment plan,
but that is a discussion for a different day.

What your boss is doing is illegal - he is stealing from the employees,
plain and simple. I'd be surprised if anyone could show anything
substantive that proves otherwise.

The trap for you is this - you may be complicit at worst and a scapegoat at
best. WHEN (not if) one of these employees catches on and files a wage and
labor dispute with your state's wage and labor board and your company gets
investigated heads will roll. In all likeliehood it will probably be yours.
I'd bet you dollars to donuts that your boss has covered his tracks such
that these "adjustments" look like they are being done by you and you alone.

My advice to you is simple, but will no doubt be hard to swallow - so sit
down and hold on:

Find a local employment attorney, make an appointment and pay them out of
your own pocket (I know you wont' like that part, but it is time to cover
your backside), explain the situation to them just as you have to us, SHOW
them whatever documentation you have to support what you're doing AND WHY -
include notes from your boss instructing you to do this. And get a written
opinion from the attorney. Expect to pay several hundred dollars for this -
but trust me it will be worth its weight in gold.

Then ask the attorney for advice on what you should do AND GET THAT IN
WRITING ALSO. Then follow that advice to the letter.

Good luck,
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan wrote:

- quote -

IMO, the perception that he lacked the integrity to timely
meet his tax reporting and paying responsibilities hinders
his ability to lead and represent Treasury Department
employees in meeting their assigned missions, and to inspire
the confidence of American taxpayers in this time of
financial crisis.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Phil Marti wrote:
- quote -

with its own employees has really nothing to do with whether an
individual is qualified for a cabinet post or more specifically,
Secretary of the Treasury.

My personal belief is that underpayment of taxes does not by
itself disqualify anyone from such a position unless it can be
shown there was tax evasion (fraudulent and willful underpayment
of taxes).

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >