Claims the 1099/W-2 is false to obtain refund

[Kimokeo]

I was looking at LH and found a long thread about filing a 1099/W-2.
Finding that altering the jurat is drawing attention, the arguments are now focusing on the employer.

The employer isn't a federal agency and such nonsense and therefore the refund should be valid - wages being zero.

One person signs under perjury that the 1099/W-2 is false.
The employer has signed under perjury that the 1099/W-2 is true.

The employer is taking a tax write-off for wages paid to employees. So, as an employer, I want those tax write-offs and I'll contest the nonsense. The employer certainly doesn't want IRS to come after them - losing write-offs creates potential tax due.

Eventually the employer-employee relationship will sour greatly from this point forth. Do these nuts realize that placing their employer under IRS scrutiny is going to annoy them?

One thing that isn't discussed on their nutty site is that an audit may begin for their employer. By claiming the W-2/1099 to be false, they are placing their employer into a position to defend their jurat on the W-3/1096. Nothing like trying to convict your employer of fraud.

Looking for a new job?

[notorial dissent]

Kimokeo, I agree with you that this is probably one of the dumber stunts some of the nutjobs pull, and in my experience, it is a pretty good short cut to the unemployment line, except the state won’t except mordant stupidity as a valid excuse and so there go the unemployment checks. The state isn’t going to play that game either. I am more inclined to believe that the IRS would take a quick look at things and side with the employer rather than the employee since this is an altogether too common ploy and the employer’s side is way easier to verify. This little ploy rears it’s head every so often, I see it on Sui all the time, and I would bet Pete’s crowd go in for it too.

I can’t help wondering if these dim bulbs realize that they are committing a whole raft of Federal, time serving and fineable time offenses by doing that. Same with the weird W-4's some of them insist upon.

[webhick]

I don't think them changing the W-2/1099s to zero is going to cause employers much grief. For one thing, the nutjob worked more than one job and defaced all the W-2/1099s they received, it's a red flag on the nutjob. For another, if the nutjob is the only one to claim that they didn't receive any wages, then its a red flag on the nutjob. I imagine that in the event that the IRS wants to check into it, all that could be needed to disprove it is showing a copy of a canceled check (or all of them for the calendar year, if the IRS wants to get picky). I feel a payroll audit, although possible, would be overkill in the situation.

An employer running across one of these types should probably keep copies of the nutjob's canceled checks on file, just in case. Along with really accurate payroll records on the person - which they're supposed to do anyway...but you know it doesn't really work out that way with small companies.

[Imalawman]

I don't think them changing the W-2/1099s to zero is going to cause employers much grief. For one thing, the nutjob worked more than one job and defaced all the W-2/1099s they received, it's a red flag on the nutjob. For another, if the nutjob is the only one to claim that they didn't receive any wages, then its a red flag on the nutjob. I imagine that in the event that the IRS wants to check into it, all that could be needed to disprove it is showing a copy of a canceled check (or all of them for the calendar year, if the IRS wants to get picky). I feel a payroll audit, although possible, would be overkill in the situation.

An employer running across one of these types should probably keep copies of the nutjob's canceled checks on file, just in case. Along with really accurate payroll records on the person - which they're supposed to do anyway...but you know it doesn't really work out that way with small companies.

Normal procedure is to simply send a statement indicating how much the TPs actually earned and have the employer sign off on it or the employer fill the amount in if we don't know how much they earned. Usually that does the trick.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

- snip-

An employer running across one of these types should probably keep copies of the nutjob's canceled checks on file, just in case. Along with really accurate payroll records on the person - which they're supposed to do anyway...but you know it doesn't really work out that way with small companies.

Yes, but only if the small company in question isn't taking advantage of the tools available to make this easier. I do the financials for our small company and there's a wonderful little tool called Quickbooks that makes payroll a virtual no-brainer. For a reasonable fee it even automatically updates the various payroll tax changes. In a few minutes I can give a full accounting of our payroll for the last 10 years, though it might take a little longer to excavate the cancelled checks. Of course, with any software the results are only as good as the information going in. I know of several other small companies locally that still do all their bookkeeping by hand. Who in their right mind would want to track thousands of items in inventory with a @*^&$% ledger? Suckers for punishment I tell ya. I know other small companies that pay their accountant a lot of money to do payroll for a handful of employees because they claim they can't afford the computer and software to do it themselves.

[webhick]

- snip-

An employer running across one of these types should probably keep copies of the nutjob's canceled checks on file, just in case. Along with really accurate payroll records on the person - which they're supposed to do anyway...but you know it doesn't really work out that way with small companies.

Yes, but only if the small company in question isn't taking advantage of the tools available to make this easier. I do the financials for our small company and there's a wonderful little tool called Quickbooks that makes payroll a virtual no-brainer. For a reasonable fee it even automatically updates the various payroll tax changes. In a few minutes I can give a full accounting of our payroll for the last 10 years, though it might take a little longer to excavate the cancelled checks. Of course, with any software the results are only as good as the information going in.

Being a bookkeeper working for a bookkeeping firm handling 20+ companies, I'm well aware of QB payroll. And fixing the mistakes caused by people using it and how it is lacking for dealing with the state forms, idiots, and non-profits. Simply put, I'm not a fan of it and unless they make a reasonable attempt to properly service non-profits and at least try to stop people from making egregious errors (like putting Gross Wages and all the Payroll Taxes into the same account and not allowing you to separate it or create new accounts, properly classed accounts to start using or allowing them to wipe out FICA after the check has been cut...just because they feel like it), I will never be a fan of it. QB and ADP payroll errors are the vast majority of the ones I have to clear up.

Your file must be huge if there's 10 years of data in it. Consider archiving the old data (it makes a backup of the data removed in a separate file so it's still there for reference) to bring down the file size, speed up searches, and cut down the room for internal file errors. For most of our companies, after the taxes are filed, we archive back a year. So, being 2008, we'll be archiving up to the end of 2006 once the taxes are filed. Remember to go on the company's fiscal year, not calendar year. But keep in mind that if the fiscal year is different from the calendar year, it will still archive payroll on the calendar year. For example, if you're archiving your fiscal year up to 06/2006, QB will only archive payroll up to the end of 12/2005.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Being a bookkeeper working for a bookkeeping firm handling 20+ companies, I'm well aware of QB payroll. And fixing the mistakes caused by people using it and how it is lacking for dealing with the state forms, idiots, and non-profits. Simply put, I'm not a fan of it and unless they make a reasonable attempt to properly service non-profits and at least try to stop people from making egregious errors (like putting Gross Wages and all the Payroll Taxes into the same account and not allowing you to separate it or create new accounts, properly classed accounts to start using or allowing them to wipe out FICA after the check has been cut...just because they feel like it), I will never be a fan of it. QB and ADP payroll errors are the vast majority of the ones I have to clear up.

Interesting. We've had problems with it misclassifying CAFETERIA deducts on W2's, but nothing else major. Lucky I guess. I certainly agree that QB certainly isn't perfect, but it works well for our purposes. I have some grievances with other parts of the program such as not linking sales orders with related purchase orders, which I think is almost unforgiveable. I "inherited" the software when I agreed rather begrudgingly to assume the bookkeeping duties. There was enough shyte that had to cleared up from our previous bookkeeper that changing at that time wasn't an option. Now, I don't have the time to learn a new package, this works well for our business, and our accountant is a QB wizard so we're leaving it as is.

Your file must be huge if there's 10 years of data in it. Consider archiving the old data (it makes a backup of the data removed in a separate file so it's still there for reference) to bring down the file size, speed up searches, and cut down the room for internal file errors. For most of our companies, after the taxes are filed, we archive back a year. So, being 2008, we'll be archiving up to the end of 2006 once the taxes are filed. Remember to go on the company's fiscal year, not calendar year. But keep in mind that if the fiscal year is different from the calendar year, it will still archive payroll on the calendar year. For example, if you're archiving your fiscal year up to 06/2006, QB will only archive payroll up to the end of 12/2005.

It's about 75 MB give or take. We have a small group of specialized customers and on occasion will duplicate an "order" from several years in the past. It's much easier to find vendor bills and customer invoices from a QB search than to dig through banker boxes in a storage closet. Once we close out a FY, then we lock out changes to those transactions. I'll look more into archiving the old data. Thanks for the tips!

[grixit]

About 20 years ago, i wrote a payroll program in Dbase for Dos. The contract bookkeeper i wrote it for is still using it. It records all hours, rates, gross, deductions, net, check numbers, etc. Can't do CAFE, though, and a couple of years ago we were planning to do a big upgrade. But the customer who wanted it never gave us enougfh information to finish the job and finally they decided to go with Quickbooks.