its a gamble, but not much of one.
1st, i can manage my own money and if it becomes due and payable i will have the money. i don’t plan on spending it until its certain.
2nd, i don’t believe the politics of it allow much of a chance of the congress not forgiving it
3rd, its not refundable, so if you don’t get it now, you’re ■■■■ out of luck
4th, whats to stop trump from defering the tax again from jan-apr if the congress doesn’t?
WCD9973
324
The problem you are having is that you are reading the order as a stand alone. It’s not.
You have to first read and understand the law that exists today and then the order.
The part you are missing is that unlike income taxes (which is 100% the responsibility of the individual) the payroll tax is the responsibility of the employer.
In the order, where ever it says “tax payer” they are referring to the employer NOT the individual.
When you read the order (which is actually a memo BTW) knowing that background, you will see it’s pretty clear
2 Likes
1 & 2 - What you are actually doing is accruing debt in the hopes the government will forgive that debt.
3 - You don’t know how taxes work.
4 - So the President never has to collect taxes required by law? This is dumb.
WCD9973
326
FYI- this is not correct.
It is refundable.
It’s just rare you overpay it due to no deduction from it.
But say you make over the limit (I think it’s $133k right now).
If I make say $250,000 a year and switch companies halfway thru the year, my second company is still require to withhold the payroll tax for the first $133k I make with them, regardless of what I already made.
I’m this case, I over paid and when I do my taxes at the end of the year, it’s refundable.
I know this as a fact.
When or if #3 is coupled with widespread non-participation the gamble on #2 is less sure. What will be the public reception of some random group of ppl getting a tax forgiveness that does not apply to everyone?
You are right, there will probably be pressure for “forgiveness”, but it will come in the form of new legislation and Congress is the master of disguise in this regard— who knows what the legislation will actually due vs what they get the public to believe it will do.
I’ve never liked this particular policy and the way it is playing out is the reason. It has two more parts gambit than solution for my taste.
As for #4, I’d have to look for the source again but my memory is that the deferral power has a time limit of a year, so absent legislation the bill must come due in 2021 some time.
That might be the acceptable solution to non-forgiveness. Stretch the payback out all of 2021 so the take home pay hit is small enough to quell the pressure.
Gamesmanship is what is going to happen.
I believe the language of the order is intentionally sparse to mask the reality that this will be treated as non-mandatory.
The descriptive words we are using are not in the order, neither is the word required or mandatory. Shall appears, but it reads to me that it is directed to the Treasury.
The word “otherwise” appears in the guidance and that puts an arrow deep into the mandatory argument. “Otherwise” is clear language that something else can be done by employers. There is no guidance on what that something else is. You reasoned that it is very limited, but you relied on reasoning rather than language from the guidance. The reality on the ground is that caravans of trucks are riding through that otherwise door, taking the meaning that it permits them to continue to withhold payroll taxes.
Unless the Treasury comes out quickly to close that door the position that “otherwise” is limited can not stand very long. It is their treatment of that word that rules, not our reading.
no, its not refundable. that was a part of it. if you don’t do it now, you don’t get it later, even if it is forgiven. it will not be an over payment, different animal.
oh please, the word otherwise is only in the order telling employers what they can do to get the money AFTER jan 1st. what you’re peddling is ■■■■■■■■■
WCD9973
331
I see what you are saying.
You are saying if the amount is forgiven but you already submitted you won’t get it back?
I don’t know if that is true but maybe. I’ll look.
the employer is NOT the taxpayer, the employer is the tax collector and remmitter. The employee is the taxpayer, and if there is an underpayment it is the employee not the employer who is responsible for paying it. yes, the order does identify the employer as the taxpayer (which is wrong, they are the remitter), and it tells them what to do with the deferred amount… make it available to the employee.
and once again you fail to understand, the same law that determines that is the same law that gives the president the authority to defer it. he did. all those collection rules are LEGALLY DEFERRED.
I’m not peddling, I’m very open to different readings. I tried my hand at a reading that explains how so many businesses and commenters are treating this as an opt in. I’m open to correction, but the correction needs to come from Administration action.
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 compensationpaid 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.
On the issue of “otherwise” clearly time limiting alternatives to post Jan 1, 2021 I don’t see that spelled out. That timeframe is nearby, but it is in the context of the non-otherwise scenario. Once you get to “otherwise” a good-faith argument can be made that the otherwise applies to the timeframe as well.
Your reading can also be argued— but neither one of our interpretations is spelled out very plainly in this guidance.
I’m not trying to see what I want to see. I would prefer to see detailed, clear guidance on every scenario coupled with the typical IRS FAQs to back up the guidance.
The fact that reputable entities (and Chuck Grassley) are deliberately proclaiming this as non-mandatory does lend some credibility to my current belief that this will not be enforced as mandatory by the Treasury.
The behavior of the Treasury in next few weeks should settle this. So far one employer in my household has communicated that they will continue to withhold. If that is not permitted the Treasury will instruct them to withhold.
WCD9973
334
Sigh. You are just wrong.
I’m trying to be understanding but it was even published that in the instructions from the treasury “tax payer” was the employer not the individual. Because, as I keep telling you but you refuse to accept, your employer is responsible for paying payroll taxes, not you
Btw, the line of the order says "
The Affected Taxpayer may make arrangements to otherwise collect the total Applicable Taxes from the employee"
Think logically. If the “tax payer” was the employee that how would that make sense. The employee may make arrangements to other wise collect the taxes from the employee"?
No. It’s clear to anyone and everyone that “affected taxpayer” is different then the “employee”.
Affected taxpayer IS the employer. This is where you are confused
The President did defer it. No one is arguing with you. But that doesn’t forbid companies from collecting it (which they are required to do) and submitting it.
My mortgage company granted me a deferal for my payments for the last 6 months, that doesn’t forbid me from paying them anyway.
Ive tried to explain it. You refuse to accept that this is not income tax. Refuse to accept that the employer is the one required to collect and pay, not the indivual, refuse to accept the option of the experts, payroll companies, even the treasury secretary himself.
I give up. This is no longer a debate. There is fact and your unfortunate refusal to accept it.
Good luck
the language is clear, the otherwise only applies “if necessary”. If you follow the guideline, its not necessary except in unusual circumstance (former employee, seasonal employee, maybe some others). The order does not say “the employer may otherwise” it says “if necessary the employer may…”. Everyone reading this as optional is reading something out of it. Perhaps the treasury will allow it, they shouldn’t.
Some people will never understand how taxes work. It is complex and convoluted, and if you have not spent time working in a field that deals with them directly, or been responsible for paying them on behalf of employees, it can be confusing. You have done great work in laying it all out. What you have posted is spot-on accurate. You can only lead a horse to water my friend.
2 Likes
some peoples arrogance causes them to assume a lot of wrong ■■■■ about other people.
the fact you refuse to accept is the President deferred it. Period. All of those things you claim have to be done now in the law are deferred, LEGALLY DEFERRED according to the law.
No assumption necessary. You are mind-numbingly wrong about this. It has been explained by people who clearly are actually well versed on this subject, as I am also, and it is very, very apparent that you are not in your element here. Hence the reason why you are literally the only person here arguing your position. Basically every other person in the nation that is discussing this situation and dealing with this in real time with their businesses understands this other than you. It is okay. These things are complicated and complex. Just like so many people struggle to understand macroeconomics, taxes is another area that many people who are not directly involved in this line of work have a hard time grasping.
4 Likes
there you go again, reading out what you don’t want to see.
IF NECESSARY
you do know the meaning of “if necessary” I hope.
why did you leave that off? quite dishonest. ot surprised.
I never said the memo did not identify the employer as the taxpayer, its wrong, they are not the taxpayer, they are the remitter. just the same for the memo’s purpose it tells them what to do “make the deferred amount available to the employee”. There is no option there, it doesn’t say “you may” it says “is to be”… you know the meaning of that don’t you?
In the event it is “necessary” to make alternative arrangement to collect the money that has already been deferred, then the employer may make those arrangements. this would be in the event withholding was not possible, which is what would make it “necessary”
Using words from the memo or guidance can you summarize the meaning of necessary and the scenarios it is limited too?
I did not leave this term out in my posting and we reasoned about it earlier in the thread. I think our different stances on mandatory participation have boiled down to “necessary”, “otherwise” and “arrangement”.
i don’t give a crap what you think has been explained. the explanations are wanting, they read things out of the memo that are there and read into it things that are not. My understanding is quite good, and I have a wealth of experience in the field, ore than you I guarantee. All the experience in the world will not change the meanings of words, take them out or read new ones in.
you know what, your arrogance is beyond the pale, I can no longer stomach it.
