|
Huh, you're right. It was a contract to hire position through a headhunter so I just assumed. Time to call them up, I guess.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:Huh, you're right. It was a contract to hire position through a headhunter so I just assumed. Time to call them up, I guess. I thought it was statutory withholding but the rate is wrong. Who knows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:Huh, you're right. It was a contract to hire position through a headhunter so I just assumed. Time to call them up, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
My recruiter said that she believes they are W2 wages. That solves that problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:My recruiter said that she believes they are W2 wages. That solves that problem. Not really. "Believes" != "what actually happened." You should have gotten a paystub showing withholdings - no paystub, no withholdings. I see some clients come through every now and then with a check that had "withholdings" but the payer was just keeping the money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
This is what's relevant on my paystub. The rest is a bunch of zero entries for deductions and benefitscode:
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Happiness Commando posted:This is what's relevant on my paystub. The rest is a bunch of zero entries for deductions and benefits That's W-2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
AbbiTheDog posted:Not really. "Believes" != "what actually happened." You should have gotten a paystub showing withholdings - no paystub, no withholdings. I see some clients come through every now and then with a check that had "withholdings" but the payer was just keeping the money. Wouldn't the payer be liable for failing to turn over withheld monies?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
sullat posted:Wouldn't the payer be liable for failing to turn over withheld monies? Yes, they would be embezzling trust fund withholdings, which is one of the few areas that the IRS will actively send the DOJ after your rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
AbbiTheDog posted:That's W-2. How dare you ruin the surprise of my unexpectedly large refund 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Yes, they would be embezzling trust fund withholdings, which is one of the few areas that the IRS will actively send the DOJ after your rear end. The government doesn't screw around with payroll taxes. They issue refunds to taxpayers even if the employer doesn't send in the money, and the government has the authority to go after "responsible parties" and breach the corporate veil to go after individuals for corporate tax liabilities. It's nasty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
AbbiTheDog posted:It's nasty. Man, you misspelled awesome. I wish the corporate veil could be pierced for more offenses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Man, you misspelled awesome. There was a recent case where the IRS went after the CPA firm who didn't own/operate/manage their client for back payroll taxes. The CPA firm was preparing checks based on what the client told them to prepare and pay, and the IRS argued that the CPA firm should have made their client pay the back payroll taxes first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Was the IRS successful in their argument? Not that it's fun arguing against the Service...
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
AbbiTheDog posted:There was a recent case where the IRS went after the CPA firm who didn't own/operate/manage their client for back payroll taxes. The CPA firm was preparing checks based on what the client told them to prepare and pay, and the IRS argued that the CPA firm should have made their client pay the back payroll taxes first. This is why you don't write checks for your clients. Huge issues come about. Was this a recent case, because this is a very well known no no in the industry. Maybe this was some rinky dink "CPA firm" with one 65 year old dude running it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Bloody Queef posted:This is why you don't write checks for your clients. Huge issues come about. Was this a recent case, because this is a very well known no no in the industry. Maybe this was some rinky dink "CPA firm" with one 65 year old dude running it. Erwin vs. US, 111 AFTR 2d 2013-748.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
Bloody Queef posted:This is why you don't write checks for your clients. Huge issues come about. Was this a recent case, because this is a very well known no no in the industry. Maybe this was some rinky dink "CPA firm" with one 65 year old dude running it. Plenty of CPA firms engage in funds control engagements. While the case you're referring to doesn't involve a funds control job, it's not rare for CPA firms to collect and disburse monies on behalf of their clients.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Admiral101 posted:Plenty of CPA firms engage in funds control engagements. While the case you're referring to doesn't involve a funds control job, it's not rare for CPA firms to collect and disburse monies on behalf of their clients. We do write up work for our clients, and in some cases draft checks, but as soon as one of those clients gets behind in payroll taxes we terminate that part of our engagement with them. I'm not going to pay their back taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Admiral101 posted:Plenty of CPA firms engage in funds control engagements. While the case you're referring to doesn't involve a funds control job, it's not rare for CPA firms to collect and disburse monies on behalf of their clients. We do some similar engagements. It is imperative that you know the client well and that everyone follows procedures.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
My mother is about to sell a house that we inherited, but had to pay for (my paternal grandmother was a scrooge). So she is about to have to pay a capital gains tax on $125k when the new year rolls around. I've read that you can gift up to $14,000 tax free once per year per person, does that mean she can gift me $14k and not pay taxes on that part of the $125? Can she do this to other people as well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:My mother is about to sell a house that we inherited, but had to pay for (my paternal grandmother was a scrooge). So she is about to have to pay a capital gains tax on $125k when the new year rolls around. I've read that you can gift up to $14,000 tax free once per year per person, does that mean she can gift me $14k and not pay taxes on that part of the $125? Can she do this to other people as well? No (as they're two different events - a sale and a gift, and the gift can't shelter the gain on sale), although you haven't really explained the sale of residence part. Is it her primary residence? Has she lived there for at least 2 of the last 5 years? Because there is a $250,000 exclusion for individuals ($500,000 for couples) on gains on sale for primary residences. It could very well be that she'll have $0 (or at least less than $125,000) in gain to recognize if she meets the requirements of the Section 121 exclusion, but you have to have to tell us more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
No we looked into that already. They check pretty thoroughly to make sure it's actually your homestead if you want to claim the exclusion. Her drivers license shows her home, and her work is very close to her house whereas the inherited property is a few hours away. My father lived there for quite a while and had his drivers license address as the inherited home for a few years while he was there often to take care of my grandmother and sell off some old stuff after she passed. But he died several years ago so I don't think there is any way to use the inherited property for the primary residence exclusion. But this is just from what I've read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:No we looked into that already. They check pretty thoroughly to make sure it's actually your homestead if you want to claim the exclusion. Her drivers license shows her home, and her work is very close to her house whereas the inherited property is a few hours away. Was the house in your mother or grandmother's name? By "inherited", I'm assuming you mean that the house was in your grandmother's name, and when your grandmother died, your mother received the house. If this was the case, when did your grandmother die? Inherited property received a "stepped up" basis at the time of the former owner's death to the fair market value at the time of death. Meaning: If your grandmother bought the home for 100k, when she died it was worth 200k, and your mother later sold it for 210k - the taxable gain to your mother is 10k, not 110k. If the sale was relatively soon after your grandmother's death then it's safe to say that there's little to no gain on the property sale. There may be some kind of state inheritance tax filings to help you determine the FMV of the house at date of death. The home sale exclusion is irrelevant in your situation and you should not bother looking into it further. Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
I am about to marry someone who makes 1/4 as much salary as me (I am a terrible golddigger). My taxes and his have been fairly simple in the past - no dependents, single, 1 deduction on our I-9s. Once we're married, I know we should change our I-9s to say married, but I have also been told we should put a 2 on the higher earner's I-9 and a 0 on the lower earner's I-9 to avoid paying way more taxes than we need to and getting a huge refund. Is this correct?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
T. J. Eckleburg posted:I am about to marry someone who makes 1/4 as much salary as me (I am a terrible golddigger). My taxes and his have been fairly simple in the past - no dependents, single, 1 deduction on our I-9s. Once we're married, I know we should change our I-9s to say married, but I have also been told we should put a 2 on the higher earner's I-9 and a 0 on the lower earner's I-9 to avoid paying way more taxes than we need to and getting a huge refund. Is this correct? That depends entirely on the actual income numbers, but it's not your I-9 that you declare your applicable deductions on, it's the W-4.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I have an opportunity to get transferred internationally. Do I still pay US income tax?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Celot posted:I have an opportunity to get transferred internationally. Do I still pay US income tax? US citizens and resident aliens are taxed on all income, whether US or foreign sourced (although you get to take the Foreign Tax Credit or Foreign Earned Income Exclusion on the foreign sourced income), so yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:US citizens and resident aliens are taxed on all income, whether US or foreign sourced (although you get to take the Foreign Tax Credit or Foreign Earned Income Exclusion on the foreign sourced income), so yes. ... but you get a big exclusion from paying taxes on a big chunk of it and a credit towards your US tax for any foreign tax you pay, so it can offset a lot of (if not all of) your liability. Edit: you ninja-edited to mention the exclusion/credit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Bisty Q. posted:... but you get a big exclusion from paying taxes on a big chunk of it and a credit towards your US tax for any foreign tax you pay, so it can offset a lot of (if not all of) your liability. Technically, you take the exclusion or the credit, not both (since that would be double dipping). A good amount of the time the Foreign Tax Credit works out to save more money so you would generally (but not always) end up electing that. Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Aug 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
baquerd posted:That depends entirely on the actual income numbers, but it's not your I-9 that you declare your applicable deductions on, it's the W-4. Sorry I got the names mixed up. I think my totally taxable income after my 401k this year is going to be something like 64k, and his will be something like 16-18k.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
T. J. Eckleburg posted:Sorry I got the names mixed up. Fortunately enough for you, the W-4 actually has a worksheet attached to it for exactly this sort of situation. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf It looks like if you both refile your W-4's as married filing jointly with zero allowances, you'll have less than a thousand in taxes due at the end of the year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Fortunately enough for you, the W-4 actually has a worksheet attached to it for exactly this sort of situation. OK... so I did the worksheet and I got 0 as well. This confuses me, because I thought lower numbers of allowances meant more was withheld, but I'm willing to take it on faith unless someone just wants to explain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
T. J. Eckleburg posted:OK... so I did the worksheet and I got 0 as well. This confuses me, because I thought lower numbers of allowances meant more was withheld, but I'm willing to take it on faith unless someone just wants to explain. Your allowances' actual impact on taxes withheld depends on your filing status. Taking zero allowances as MFJ will generally mean that less will be taken out in terms of taxes compared to filing Single with one allowance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
If I have two jobs in the same field, one W-2 and the other 1099, how does deducting for professional license fees, health insurance, uniforms, continuing education, etc work assuming the W-2 employer provides no reimbursement for any of those? If I only had a W-2 job, I think I could only deduct any unreimbursed expense and healthcare expenses greater than a percentage of my AGI if I itemized. If I only had a 1099 job, I could deduct the various fees and health insurance premiums in their entirety against that income. But I'm not sure how it would work if I have both. Could I count the entire cost against the 1099 income or would I only be allowed to deduct a certain percentage of them on Schedule C? Ancillary Character fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
My freelance business is on track to make $45K-$50K this year so I sure I'm going to have to pay a nice chunk of taxes. My question is about deducting business expenses. Since I'm sure I'll owe about $14,000 in taxes (~30% of my earnings) would it be wise to spend around $14,000 on the business so it will cancel out my tax liability (I mean, I'm going to lose that $14K anyways, right)? Is that how all that works or am I horribly misinformed? Additionally, how much should I expect to pay a CPA to help me get all this in order (deductions, quarterly filing, etc.)? Thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Omits-Bagels posted:My question is about deducting business expenses. Since I'm sure I'll owe about $14,000 in taxes (~30% of my earnings) would it be wise to spend around $14,000 on the business so it will cancel out my tax liability (I mean, I'm going to lose that $14K anyways, right)? Is that how all that works or am I horribly misinformed? Business owners everywhere would collectively orgasm if that's how taxes worked. Unfortunately, let's say you're paying $10k in taxes on $50k of income, and then you want to mitigate those taxes and so you spend $10k in deductible costs. Now, you're taxed as if you made $40k, so you only pay $8k in taxes. This is a gross oversimplification, but the takeaway is that business deductions are not tax credits, they only decrease the amount of taxable earnings.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Business owners everywhere would collectively orgasm if that's how taxes worked. Ok, good. I thought that didn't sound right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Omits-Bagels posted:Additionally, how much should I expect to pay a CPA to help me get all this in order (deductions, quarterly filing, etc.)? Thanks Asking this is like asking a mechanic how much it will cost to fix your car without taking it into the shop for an inspection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Are any of the taxes on utilities (electric, gas, phones, etc) deductible as part of the general sales tax deduction? For example, there is a 5% flat tax on my electric bill: LOCAL GOVERNMENT FEE 5% $20.74
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
Droo posted:Are any of the taxes on utilities (electric, gas, phones, etc) deductible as part of the general sales tax deduction? That's not a sales tax. Not every payment made to a local/state government is going to be deductible. Many, many aren't (eg; car registration fees, state unemployment, etc)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 02:45
|
|