New employee thinks he doesn't have to pay taxes

[wserra]

There are people on there swearing that they never get a traffic ticket because of the way they signed their driver's license. Are they crazy, or just lying?

Nothing says they can't be both.

In any event, though, they're wrong. I truly have never gotten a traffic ticket in 40 years of driving. My secret? I keep a very careful watch when I drive. Whenever I see a cop, I say a quick prayer to St. Alfonso (Patron of the Pancake Breakfast). Works every time.

[.]

I had never met one until now.

And that's one more than I've met.

I've probably hired about 100 people in two different businesses over the years since 1979, the year I became aware of Irwin Schiff's tax delusions due to his very slight and peripheral involvement in the investment business via speaking at gold-bug conferences. This was back before his first federal tax conviction.

There are legimate reasons why someone could claim exemption from federal withholding, but I've never had a new hire try to pursue any of the multitude of TP delusions. Had anyone tried, they would have been instantly gone because I had read Schiffty's junk and knew what a loon he was (and remains to this day.)

Referring to Uncle Schiffty's garbage, one guy did once ask "Is there anything to this?" My answer was "No." and that was the end of it. Good thing, too, or it would have been the end of his employment.

Anyone dense enough to buy any TP "argument" is nothing but trouble on many levels, most of which have nothing to do with taxes. While potentially hilarious, I wouldn't advise screwing around with your guy via UCC notations on his checks. Just dispense with him at the earliest possible moment and count yourself lucky.

[Doktor Avalanche]

From my lofty height over here in the Philippines (hi, guys!) this is truly a sad story.

ThirdTime, heed the advice: fire this ass-clown yesterday.

[Joey Smith]

Or, ask him to give you a written statement that he is not a U.S. citizen. Then, call the Immigration Service and have him deported as an illegal alien.

[Sadly, they won't deport him, but the idea is fun anyhow.]

[TheSaint]

Even in an at-will state, I would use some ordinary care in any action against an employee for anything that you don't already have a written policy for.

Why would a company need a written policy about something they're required by federal law to do? That's like having a policy requiring employees to show valid proof of eligibility to work in the United States before hiring. It's superfluous at best. At worst it could inspire a PITA employee, like the one ThirdTimeCharm hired, to assume that any federal law that's not also a stated company policy doesn't apply to him. You can imagine how a TP nut would make hay of that discovery.

(I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's some legal reason for this that I'm not aware of.)

[Judge Roy Bean]

Surprisingly, the CID that showed up at my office the day my world came crashing down were two hotties in business casual. As far as lacking a sense of humor, they almost laughed when I took the 5th.

This shouldn't be taken as sexist, but you just never know when it comes to women who may or may not pose a risk to your personal freedom.

I recall waiting outside a busy and unfamiliar courtroom among at least a half dozen varied petty criminal defense parties and their witnesses with counsel all clumped into their quiet little discussions when I guess what you'd call a "hottie" garnered a comment from some miscreant as she walked (one could justifiably say, strutted) past. Trust me, she had no sense of humor. It got real quiet. I guess everyone but the doofus commentator and I knew who she was. She didn't slow down and just said loudly, "If that's your client Ron, come see me in chambers."

[Judge Roy Bean]

Why would a company need a written policy about something they're required by federal law to do? That's like having a policy requiring employees to show valid proof of eligibility to work in the United States before hiring. It's superfluous at best. At worst it could inspire a PITA employee, like the one ThirdTimeCharm hired, to assume that any federal law that's not also a stated company policy doesn't apply to him. You can imagine how a TP nut would make hay of that discovery.

(I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's some legal reason for this that I'm not aware of.)

Primarily to avoid the potential for having an employee treated differently than another and claiming they were discriminated against. The larger the firm, the more important it is, because some less-informed supervisors or managers may take it upon themselves to interpret what is or isn't "legal." You'd be surprised how many bosses think they know the law, and not many employees will argue the point with their immediate supervisor and their manager.

Having an employee violate a written and acknowledged policy will make any charge of discrimination very, very difficult to pursue, let alone prove.

[Nick]

Is his name M. Cole?

Can the dude. You say you can't find someone else? Can him anyway. You're better off without this dude no matter what. It will be a problem every day.

[TheSaint]

Primarily to avoid the potential for having an employee treated differently than another and claiming they were discriminated against.

Okay, but can an employee plausibly claim discrimination if they are fired for asking the employer to violate the law? As I understand it, businesses are required to withhold income taxes, and the subject of this thread is demanding his employer not do that.

[AFTP]

If you want to throw a TP for a loop, use their own strategy against them.
Everything he sends you write in bright red marker

REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR U.C.C. 3-501

See his reaction!

[webhick]

If you want to throw a TP for a loop, use their own strategy against them.
Everything he sends you write in bright red marker

REFUSAL FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOR U.C.C. 3-501

See his reaction!

Especially when it's his time card and your policy is "no time card, no pay".

Kidding again. Wouldn't recommend screwing with the guy. But fantasizing about it is okay.

[LPC]

Even in an at-will state, I would use some ordinary care in any action against an employee for anything that you don't already have a written policy for.

Why would a company need a written policy about something they're required by federal law to do?

The company is required to withhold taxes, but it's not required to fire people who refuse to provide a W-4. As JRB has pointed out, having a written policy cuts down on the chances of claims that firings are arbitrary or unfair.

That's like having a policy requiring employees to show valid proof of eligibility to work in the United States before hiring. It's superfluous at best.

That kind of policy serves a different purpose. You don't want to *assume* that your employees know what the law requires, or for them to have to research the law, so you write policies and procedures to tell them what they have to do. So, when you hire a new HR person, you don't need to worry about whether they know to ask for proof of eligibility to work, you just tell the new HR person to follow the procedures in the HR manual.

(I've been spending a lot of time recently reviewing and writing policies for a nonprofit healthcare organization, so I'm beginning to appreciate the value of some of this stuff. We haven't yet gotten to the HIPAA policies and procedures, which I'm dreading.)

[TheSaint]

Thanks LPC, that answers my question.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...(I've been spending a lot of time recently reviewing and writing policies for a nonprofit healthcare organization, so I'm beginning to appreciate the value of some of this stuff. We haven't yet gotten to the HIPAA policies and procedures, which I'm dreading.)

Ah, the dreaded "Consultant Multiplication Act."