Another tax cheat

[DavidS]

Palin must pay tax on past per diem, state says: Gov. Sarah Palin | adn.com

 

[editec]

Cheating on one's taxes is as American as motherhood and apple pie.

It's just that most working people really cannot do it since we prepay our taxes in our paychecks.

Rhetorical question ALERT...please I don't want to know.

Who here has NOT taken work off the books and not reported it?

The wealthier you and the more complex your finances, the easier it is both to fudge on your taxes AND to screw them up because they're so damned complex.

So before we fire up the faggots to burn Sarah, why don't we just wait and see how her trial comes out?

And why, given that I think the woman is a total jerk, do I find myself having to come to her defence so much?

Where her right wing supporters?

I shouldn't have to do this for her...that's YOUR jobs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Palin must pay tax on past per diem, state says: Gov. Sarah Palin | adn.com

How is this the same as simply not paying your taxes? Go aherad explain it for us neanderthals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ahh I see, she was told it was tax free and later they changed the conditions. Not even close to the same as your democratic buddies. But you keep dreaming. It might help if you actually READ your own stories you post.

She did not fail to pay taxes, what she was told was non taxable has been retroactively changed to being taxable. So NOW she owes money she did NOT owe before. As opposed to your democrats that not only KNEW they owed taxes but signed forms admitting they KNEW they owed the taxes. Or hiring someone and pretending you do not have to pay taxes on the salary you pay to your employee.

 

[Ravi]

Ahh I see, she was told it was tax free and later they changed the conditions. Not even close to the same as your democratic buddies. But you keep dreaming. It might help if you actually READ your own stories you post.

She did not fail to pay taxes, what she was told was non taxable has been retroactively changed to being taxable. So NOW she owes money she did NOT owe before. As opposed to your democrats that not only KNEW they owed taxes but signed forms admitting they KNEW they owed the taxes. Or hiring someone and pretending you do not have to pay taxes on the salary you pay to your employee.

Your friend Timmy was also told by his account what to do.

The IRS doesn't make exceptions for stupidity. If you owe them money, you owe them money.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ahh I see, she was told it was tax free and later they changed the conditions. Not even close to the same as your democratic buddies. But you keep dreaming. It might help if you actually READ your own stories you post.

She did not fail to pay taxes, what she was told was non taxable has been retroactively changed to being taxable. So NOW she owes money she did NOT owe before. As opposed to your democrats that not only KNEW they owed taxes but signed forms admitting they KNEW they owed the taxes. Or hiring someone and pretending you do not have to pay taxes on the salary you pay to your employee.

Your friend Timmy was also told by his account what to do.

The IRS doesn't make exceptions for stupidity. If you owe them money, you owe them money.

That is correct, However if you are told it is Tax Free you do not owe it then, nor are you cheating on your taxes at the time. When a ruling is made, in this case much later, then you owe it, but still you did not cheat on your taxes. Pretty simple concept. The democrats in question did, in fact, cheat on their taxes. One signed a yearly statement that he understood he had to pay the tax and was briefed yearly on it and did not pay. The other simply refused to pay his share of the taxes on an employee he hired. THOSE are tax cheats.

 

[Jon]

Some people need to learn the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. One is illegal, the other is not.

 

[Ravi]

Ahh I see, she was told it was tax free and later they changed the conditions. Not even close to the same as your democratic buddies. But you keep dreaming. It might help if you actually READ your own stories you post.

She did not fail to pay taxes, what she was told was non taxable has been retroactively changed to being taxable. So NOW she owes money she did NOT owe before. As opposed to your democrats that not only KNEW they owed taxes but signed forms admitting they KNEW they owed the taxes. Or hiring someone and pretending you do not have to pay taxes on the salary you pay to your employee.

Your friend Timmy was also told by his account what to do.

The IRS doesn't make exceptions for stupidity. If you owe them money, you owe them money.

That is correct, However if you are told it is Tax Free you do not owe it then, nor are you cheating on your taxes at the time. When a ruling is made, in this case much later, then you owe it, but still you did not cheat on your taxes. Pretty simple concept. The democrats in question did, in fact, cheat on their taxes. One signed a yearly statement that he understood he had to pay the tax and was briefed yearly on it and did not pay. The other simply refused to pay his share of the taxes on an employee he hired. THOSE are tax cheats.

I really don't see the difference. One went by the advice of his accountant, the other went by the advice of her state. Both the accountant and the state were wrong. Neither are tax cheats, even in the eyes of the IRS. They simply must pay up what they owe.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Here is what is written. It doesn't say they changed the rules or retroactivley made them taxable. They wanted an interpretation. This is very identical to what Daschle did when he asked his lawyer to check out the use of the car in June. He didn't get an answer back until December.

"At the Governor's request, we reviewed the situation to determine whether we were in full compliance with the pertinent Internal Revenue Service regulations," Kreitzer wrote. "As a result of this review, we determined that per diem needs to be treated as income, requiring a revision of W-2 forms for any affected employees.

So she was just as ignorantly guilty as was Daschle on the car.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here is what is written. It doesn't say they changed the rules or retroactivley made them taxable. They wanted an interpretation. This is very identical to what Daschle did when he asked his lawyer to check out the use of the car in June. He didn't get an answer back until December.

"At the Governor's request, we reviewed the situation to determine whether we were in full compliance with the pertinent Internal Revenue Service regulations," Kreitzer wrote. "As a result of this review, we determined that per diem needs to be treated as income, requiring a revision of W-2 forms for any affected employees.

So she was just as ignorantly guilty as was Daschle on the car.

Wrong again. Per Diem is tax free. THAT is the law. The State decided later that since she was at her civilian home they would rule it different.

Any Lawyer that advices a client not to pay their portion of an employees taxes is a retard. Common sense applies. THE ONLY employee you do not have to pay for is a babysitter that makes less then 50 dollars working for you. Anything over that and you must provide the social security number and if they make enough pay your portion of the employee taxes.

 

[Ravi]

Here is what is written. It doesn't say they changed the rules or retroactivley made them taxable. They wanted an interpretation. This is very identical to what Daschle did when he asked his lawyer to check out the use of the car in June. He didn't get an answer back until December.

"At the Governor's request, we reviewed the situation to determine whether we were in full compliance with the pertinent Internal Revenue Service regulations," Kreitzer wrote. "As a result of this review, we determined that per diem needs to be treated as income, requiring a revision of W-2 forms for any affected employees.

So she was just as ignorantly guilty as was Daschle on the car.

Wrong again. Per Diem is tax free. THAT is the law. The State decided later that since she was at her civilian home they would rule it different.

Any Lawyer that advices a client not to pay their portion of an employees taxes is a retard. Common sense applies. THE ONLY employee you do not have to pay for is a babysitter that makes less then 50 dollars working for you. Anything over that and you must provide the social security number and if they make enough pay your portion of the employee taxes.

It isn't the law. Per diem can be tax free, it depends on how it is handled. You can read about it here:


IRS Provides Guidance on Per Diem Expense Reimbursements Paid By Employers
Regardless, per diem is for travel, not for consumption in one's own home.

 

[Ravi]

btw, the state doesn't make the IRS rules, RGS.

 

[Charles_Main]

This is why we need to reform the tax code. Today it is so complicated many people "cheat" on the taxes, and do not even know they are.

The Code is so complicated that there is a Multi Billion dollar industry just to tell us what it means.

Reforming the tax code to something simple, would cut out loops holes, and make enforcement, and compliance easier.

It just makes sense, which is precisely why we will never do it.

 

[DiamondDave]

btw, the state doesn't make the IRS rules, RGS.

But the state can deem how they consider monies paid out.... actual "per diem" is not taxable income.. .lord knows I have done enough business travel to know this

But if they deem it as something DIFFERENT because she really was not traveling, and was at a residence owned by her.. they can rule on that.. and hence with the differing label of the funds, it can then be considered taxable... and that seems to be the exact case here

 

[Ravi]

btw, the state doesn't make the IRS rules, RGS.

But the state can deem how they consider monies paid out.... actual "per diem" is not taxable income.. .lord knows I have done enough business travel to know this

But if they deem it as something DIFFERENT because she really was not traveling, and was at a residence owned by her.. they can rule on that.. and hence with the differing label of the funds, it can then be considered taxable... and that seems to be the exact case here

It's taxable income if the employee (in this case Palin) doesn't turn in receipts but is instead paid a sum to use as she pleases. It's explained by the IRS at the link I posted above.

And sorry, the employer (in this case the State) does not determine if something is taxable income or not for the purpose of federal tax collection. The IRS does.

 

[DiamondDave]

btw, the state doesn't make the IRS rules, RGS.

But the state can deem how they consider monies paid out.... actual "per diem" is not taxable income.. .lord knows I have done enough business travel to know this

But if they deem it as something DIFFERENT because she really was not traveling, and was at a residence owned by her.. they can rule on that.. and hence with the differing label of the funds, it can then be considered taxable... and that seems to be the exact case here

It's taxable income if the employee (in this case Palin) doesn't turn in receipts but is instead paid a sum to use as she pleases. It's explained by the IRS at the link I posted above.

And sorry, the employer (in this case the State) does not determine if something is taxable income or not for the purpose of federal tax collection. The IRS does.

Again.. it was PAID as per diem... but if upon REVIEW by the employer, if it does not fit their criteria for remaining labeled as per diem, then they can dictate that it was not indeed used by their guidelines and is not then to be considered per diem for tax purposes...

If the state would have decried that it was still per diem.. then the IRS would have accepted it as such

 

[Ravi]

But the state can deem how they consider monies paid out.... actual "per diem" is not taxable income.. .lord knows I have done enough business travel to know this

But if they deem it as something DIFFERENT because she really was not traveling, and was at a residence owned by her.. they can rule on that.. and hence with the differing label of the funds, it can then be considered taxable... and that seems to be the exact case here

It's taxable income if the employee (in this case Palin) doesn't turn in receipts but is instead paid a sum to use as she pleases. It's explained by the IRS at the link I posted above.

And sorry, the employer (in this case the State) does not determine if something is taxable income or not for the purpose of federal tax collection. The IRS does.

Again.. it was PAID as per diem... but if upon REVIEW by the employer, if it does not fit their criteria for remaining labeled as per diem, then they can dictate that it was not indeed used by their guidelines and is not then to be considered per diem for tax purposes...

If the state would have decried that it was still per diem.. then the IRS would have accepted it as such

I don't know what you're smoking Dave, but the IRS would have done no such thing. The State's review found they weren't in compliance with IRS rules:

"At the Governor's request, we reviewed the situation to determine whether we were in full compliance with the pertinent Internal Revenue Service regulations," Kreitzer wrote. "As a result of this review, we determined that per diem needs to be treated as income, requiring a revision of W-2 forms for any affected employees."
The new determination by administration officials won't affect state lawmakers, said Pam Varni, director of the Legislative Affairs agency.
Under IRS guidelines, legislators receive tax-free payments to help with living expenses while in Juneau for the legislative session -- if their home is at least 50 miles away, Varni said.

Again, the employer does not determine what is and is not income. The IRS does.

 

[manu1959]

i heard she is now being considered for a posistion in the obama camp...........