262

As someone pointed out already. It’s the government’s money.

263

no its not. its not the governments money until you give it to them. it becomes their money when they recieve it, not before

264

Which is exactly what we do when payroll taxes are deducted. Once that deduction happens, it’s no longer our money.

265

Trump’s intention may be clear, but the language of the order is not clear and that is what may rule the day.

If the language of the order and/or guidelines are that it is optional for the employer, then I don’t think that there is any legal issue with them withholding the money. It all comes down to what the order is really saying.

A contrived example to underscore my possible reading of the order:

Personal attacks shall not be posted with respect to forum members.

The order is to the personal attack poster, the subject of the order is personal attacks and the scope the subject of the applicable attacks is another forum member.

So one could read the order:

(a) The deferral shall be made available with respect to any employee the amount of whose wages or compensation, as applicable, payable during any bi-weekly pay period generally is less than $4,000, calculated on a pre-tax basis, …

As saying that the order is to the entity making the deferral available (Treasury) and the subject is the deferral option for employers and the scope of the option is applicable employees.

Employers seem to be acting in good faith by expressing that they are not sure how to interpret the order. This would probably protect an employer from penalty if they choose to do nothing until the guidelines are published. If the guidelines show up at the eleventh hour— too late to change payroll, I think an employer would be protected from penalty.

Take the extreme case of an executive order changing withholding that is posted 1 hour before a payday. Technically an employer may not be in compliance, but highly likely a court would provide relief if the executive tried to asses a penalty.

For changes of this magnitude a reasonable time window for compliance is probably measured in weeks and months. And probably measured from the time the guidelines come out. Therefor my assessment is it is already too late to expect and enforce compliance for September wages.

266

you are 100% wrong. its our money until the government receives it. the government won’t be receiving it. employers have no right to hold it hostage.

267

Employers are require by law to collect it. Whether or not the government wants to take it.

Trump needs to right a better EO.

268

you keep adding the word “option”. where is the word 'option" in the order? hint, it ain’t there. the order does not say “the deferral may be made available to any employer with respect to any employee…” but thats how you’re reading it. It just doesn’t say that.

269

they are required by the same law to defer collection when the President orders it. try again.

270

Treasury said it’s voluntary. Who to believe…

271

treasury said no such thing. the guidance isn’t out yet.

100% wrong three times… you’re out

272

Many of the words we are using are not in the order, or memorandum to be more accurate.

My position is that the meaning is being widely questioned and so far no re-enforcement coming out of the administration.

If, and it is an if, the target of “make available to”
Is the employer, then I would say that is an option for the employer. If the target is the employee, then it is an option for the employee. So even thought the word “option” is not in the order it is a reasonable description of the circumstance. The fact that Mnucin went on TV and said they could not compel participation indicates to me that somewhere in this policy an option exists.

273

Nope … according to the law, once we incur the debt, it is no longer our money. Just because they might delay the payment does not mean that you did not incur the debt.

274

As you note, the document in question is not even an EO, it’s a memorandum for the Secretary of the Treasury. A memo from Trump to Mnuchin cannot convey obligations on taxpayers or their employers. But it gives the appearance of Trump taking action, at least for stupid people. And Trump figures that when the bill comes due in Jan 2021 for those who do have the tax deferred, the election will be over and he won’t care if they’re pissed.

2 Likes
275

Which is why most businesses are going to continue to collect and remit.

I think the vast majority of employees will be very happy that they are not stuck with a sudden lump sum payment to the Treasury

276

The business community is interpreting the deferral as optional to the employer:

US Chamber of Congress

The signatories of this letter represent a large swath of employers.

The public discussion has gone on for two weeks without a single comment from the administration that employer participation is mandatory.

For me that is a telltale sign. If it is mandatory it is in the administration’s interest to say so. If it is not mandatory it is politically advantageous to let people think it is or remain uncertain. They have chosen the later.

1 Like
277

Agreed. The business owners I’ve spoken with (5 of them that I’ve done consulting work for in the past - business sizes range from 250 to 1,250 employees) are all taking it as a voluntary thing that they have no interest in pursuing. The lack of uncertainty and the lack of implementation rules has been a real issue for them. Also, there is going to be added cost on the employer to change their payroll systems mid-stream like this.

278

update.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-28/irs-issues-guidance-for-trump-order-to-defer-payroll-taxes

President Donald Trump’s move to defer payroll taxes through year-end likely will face resistance from companies after IRS guidelines left employers on the hook to pay back the levy early next year.

Trump directed the Treasury to allow the taxes to be deferred as a boost to a U.S. economy stalled by the coronavirus pandemic, saying it would give wage-earners more money to spend immediately. But it would hit workers with a bigger tax bill next year.

The Internal Revenue Service said employers that signed on to the option have to pay the money back by April 2021, most likely by doubling withholding for payroll taxes.

Employers “may make arrangements to otherwise collect the total applicable taxes from the employee,” if necessary, the IRS said.

If companies continue withholding the 6.2% payroll, it would blunt any potential economic or political benefit Trump had hoped to reap before the November presidential election. Congress could vote to forgive the liabilities – the only way the tax could be waived – but that’s unlikely amid the campaign.

The IRS guidance also doesn’t address another issue: What employers should do if employees quit before end of the year, said Adam Markowitz, an enrolled agent and vice president at Howard L. Markowitz PA CPA.

The guidance “gives me zero reason to tell my employers that they are protected for this,” he said.

279

All the more reason for employers to continue to collect and remit as normal.

1 Like
280

Guidlines finally came out. You were incorrect.

Employers are still responseable for collecting and submitting the money by Aug of 2021 and employers can continue to collect it as they are today.

1 Like
281

no, they cannot. these guru’s fail to read what applies now, and go straight to what applies then,

the order is specific withholding and payment is postponed. employers do not withhold the taxes of their own volition, it is regulated. they cannot choose to withhold any more than they could choose not to. the order specifically states the deferred amounts will b collected between Jan1 and Apr 30th 2021. not whenever the heck they want to.

further it does not leave employers “on the hook” the taxes they collect are not owed by them, they are owed by the employee and to be collected from the employee. not surprised at an nbc stations dishonesty… its what they do.