Thanks but no thanks, I will pay my quarterly payroll taxes (income, Social Security, Medicare) on time

WCD9973 · 2020-08-29T14:56:09.739Z

False. Read again. It simply postpone the DUE date.
It’s doesn’t change the obligation. Even states that.
Do you work for a Private company?
If so, you are going to be dissapointed when your next paycheck comes.

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T14:59:48.939Z

no it did not, it specifically says “withholding and payment”, not just payment. It does not change the obligation, it changes when the obligation can be withheld and payed… both.

WCD9973 · 2020-08-29T15:04:15.285Z

Do you notice that no one else is saying that? Not even the Trump adminstration?
Meanwhile Major payroll companies are advising thier clients to continue to withhold.
You are wrong about how the tax work.
You are wrong about the guidlines
You are simply wrong…

Employers are, and have always been, responsible for paying the payroll tax, unlike income tax.
That has not changed. Employers are still required to collect it. They just don’t have to may it until April 1st.
Most will still collect.

You didn’t answer my question, do you work for a private company?

Go ask them. You are on a island here and that should be your first hint you are wrong.
Outside of federal employees, I think very few will see this in their pay check.

In addition, the fed employees I know are actually pissed about it as they now have to prepare for smaller paychecks come Jan.

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T15:10:14.707Z

i payroll companies are doing that, then they are not in compliance. it is clear as daylight. the order states withholding is to be postponed. it does not say “may be”, it says “is”. cojpanies may be concerned because they think they will be held liable for taxes that are not collected should an employee leave before the collection period starts. thats ludicrous as they are not liable to pay it until its collected. the employee will have to pay it and report it on the excess SSA tax block on their 1040.

WCD9973 · 2020-08-29T15:37:30.163Z

Everyone is wrong except you huh?
The IRS who enforces it, wrong
The Treasury dept who wrote it, wrong.
Payroll companies who do this full time and whose entire survival is built in payroll complained, wrong.
Companies with big legal teams , wrong.

Everyone wrong except you .

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T15:47:11.398Z

https://community.hannity.com/t/thanks-but-no-thanks-i-will-pay-my-quarterly-payroll-taxes-income-social-security-medicare-on-time/233929/289?u=ben_natuf

WCD9973 · 2020-08-29T15:53:52.675Z

Yes he did. And its been posted before

“We can’t force people to participate but we think small busniesses will”

Forbes

Mnuchin Suggests Payroll Tax Deferral Will Be Up To Employers: We Can’t Force...

Last week, the President signed a directive on payroll taxes. While it has been touted as a cut, the Executive Order only allows for deferral.

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T15:58:04.036Z

lol… interviews are not binding. further, his comments did not state it would be voluntary for employers. the people they can’t force to participate are the people who’'s money it is, employees.

Snowfinch · 2020-08-29T16:04:47.477Z

I have to disagree that it is mandatory

Payment of Deferred Applicable Taxes
An Affected Taxpayer must withhold and pay the total Applicable Taxes that the Affected Taxpayer deferred under this notice ratably from wages and compensation paid between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021 or interest, penalties, and additions to tax will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021, with respect to any unpaid Applicable Taxes. If necessary, the Affected Taxpayer may make arrangements to otherwise collect the total Applicable Taxes from the employee.

Otherwise collect seems to mean they can collect these taxes from the employee now.

Couple this with the total silence from the administration on whether this is mandatory despite weeks of businesses and media stating that they do not believe it is mandatory.

If the intent is to have this mandatory they are shooting themselves in the foot come enforcement time. Businesses (through their associations) have stated their interpretations in good faith and the government has done nothing to clarify.

So go ahead and declare it is mandatory, but be prepared for some or many employers to disregard and avoid punishment. The government has an obligation to express the rules clearly and this policy has yet to be expressed clearly.

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T16:21:52.526Z

as typical, you note 1/2 of the statement to negate the other half. “make arrangements to collect FROM the employee” does not mean “Take the money without the employees input”. This is NOT voluntary for employers. you’ll note the “Must withold… from wages paid between Jan1 and Apr30 2021” must, not may, not you can, must

WCD9973 · 2020-08-29T16:23:40.416Z

Keep arguing on a island.
There is a reason you are on a island.

You are wrong. But keep refusing to accept it and next month argue with everyone they should be sueing their employer

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T16:29:07.880Z

i am secure on my “island” because i comprehend written english and know what “is to be” ,“must” and “make arrangements” mean. and they don’t mean “can”, “may” or “take as you wish”.

I also know the period from Jan1 to Apr30 2021 does not include Sep1 to Dec31 2020.

Snowfinch · 2020-08-29T16:48:02.394Z

I am an infrequent poster so I’m not sure I’ve earned an as usual or typical tag yet.

With respect to the guidence “Otherwise” is the operative term and its doing the work of negating the preceding section.

taken together my read is that it is saying you must collect the taxes from the Jan 1 to April 30… and then that word “otherwise” which is clearly saying the something else can also be arranged. Something that is NOT collecting these from the Jan-April. Maybe collection from current wages is not permitted, but what then is the “otherwise”? Will there be more guidance. If an employer interprets “otherwise” the way I am in good faith is it reasonable for them to be punished for collecting now? I thinks so, but it will depend on what their counsel says. It could be a case where despite the intent of the order a business is counseled by law experts that they are likely to win any contested case on penalty and they opt to withhold now.

My opinion as that they are being intentionally coy with the guidance. Not coming down with clear and forceful language. Allowing all sides to see what they want for the time being.

Snowfinch · 2020-08-29T16:50:52.266Z

In your read, what does “otherwise” mean. In plain English that means “different from what was just said”.

So what “otherwise” procedure is this referring to?

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T16:57:54.799Z

I don’t believe so. Admittedly, that is unclear; however, it would seem the “otherwise make arrangements” would apply to former employees thay cannot withhold from between Jan1 and Apr30. The order says “MUST withhold between…” and then goes on to say “otherwise make arrangements”. Obviously you cannot withhold from a former employee and some arrangement would have to be made. Though to be sure, that actually by regulation is not the case. If the money is not collected it is not due by the employer, it is the employee who would have to pay it. Still, it seems this is what they were trying to cover. You’ll notice the statement begins with “if necessary” not “alternatively”. It applies ONLY “if necessary”.

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T16:59:13.234Z

the one that would take place “if necessary”. Not as an alternative.

Snowfinch · 2020-08-29T17:12:42.920Z

I agree mostly with your interpretation, but it did require interpretation, and that door swings wide in this world.

You laid out an obvious “necessary” circumstance. People will come up with some not-so-obvious circumstances and it will be up to the Administration to challenge them. So far the administration has been coy about this so that would be a change of tone.

Until they come out with more clear directives I think this will still be billed as non-binding to employers by those who think or want it so and they will press the case that they are acting within the guidance.

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T17:17:55.863Z

yes, that i agree with. there are plenty out there who “want” it to not be mandatory so they can claim Trump didn’t really do anything. And businesses that fear they will be “on the hook” should they not be able to collect the money from the employee.

Snowfinch · 2020-08-29T17:24:43.244Z

There are probably legitimate good faith actors that define necessary as:

Our payroll system takes 3 months to roll out changes.

Our accounting firm tells us we can’t or shouldn’t carry that balance of outstanding liability on our books

Our seasonal employees don’t earn wages Jan-April so we need to collect now

The resistance is not necessarily political. There are real world dollar sense pressures in play here.

Ben_Natuf · 2020-08-29T17:30:39.138Z

if necessary they must “make arrangements” with the “employee”. That is not liscence to unilaterally just do it. “make arrangements” has legal meaning. now, those arrangements could be to do it now, but it would require the employees permission.

as to your examples

the first is completely irrelevant. there is no such excuse as “sorry, i cannot comply with the law”
the second is even worse as “we have decided not to comply” is clear intent
the third is legitimate, and likely would cover temporary employees as well.