Form W-4 withholding

[JohnH]

No reason for concern here. Give the PC crowd enough time and they'll come up with a new word for that as well - maybe "unproperly documented worker". Call them anything other than simply what they are - illegal aliens.

[Davc]

It's no longer fashionable to call someone who breaks the law by enteriig the country without permission an "illegal alien" and we're now expected to call them "undocumented workers".

Which is frequently a lie. Many of them have more documents than you do. They're just forgeries.

[ChEAr$]

Speaking of bank robbers, I saw saw an interesting analogy recently (well, interesting to me anyhow). It's no longer fashionable to call someone who breaks the law by enteriig the country without permission an "illegal alien" and we're now expected to call them "undocumented workers". So would it follow that if someone breaks the law by entering a bank and robbing it, should we simpy refer to them as having made an "undocumented withdrawal"?

I can see it now, on 6 O'clock news. Chief of police at the microphone telling how

"The alleged perpetrator entered the bank, stood in line and when his turn came, he
announced that he was making an unauthorized withdrawal."

Yesterday local police announced an arrest of a man from Newnan (about 70 miles away)
who came down and robbed two Columbus banks, reasoning that being from out of town he had a better chance of not being recognized. So he drove his own car, and someone
looked at wrote down a partial tax number, coupled with a description of the getaway
vehicle was enough to find him.

[JohnH]

Speaking of bank robbers, I saw saw an interesting analogy recently (well, interesting to me anyhow). It's no longer fashionable to call someone who breaks the law by enteriig the country without permission an "illegal alien" and we're now expected to call them "undocumented workers". So would it follow that if someone breaks the law by entering a bank and robbing it, should we simpy refer to them as having made an "undocumented withdrawal"?

[Black Bart]

Thanks.

Bart,
About 12;55 I was in the process of responding to this, but the lights blinked about half way through and I lost it all. By then it was 1 pm and time to close up and go home.
Gotta keep our priorities straight, right?

Right.

My apologies for snappin' at you a ways back there -- it takes me a while to stop poutin'.

[ChEAr$]

Although you refuse to laugh at my jokes (grin), I am forced to admit that thy holier-than-thou position (double-grin) is holier-than-mine and such nobility simply cannot be ignored.

While we (including me) don't always practice what we preach, the right thing's obviously called for here -- not only for our own interest, but for that of the profession as a whole. We're off the hook and don't have to sign a jurat, but it seems to me there's an implied rule ("If you know, or have reason to know....") in there somewhere. To brush it off pleading "regulations" brings to mind those who fire employees for resisting robbers.

Bart,
About 12;55 I was in the process of responding to this, but the lights blinked about half way through and I lost it all. By then it was 1 pm and time to close up and go home.
Gotta keep our priorities straight, right?

So you 'll know, I actually was LOLling, although not on the floor with all that implies.

Yes, if I were the employer, I would take him aside, put my arm around his shoulder and
begin by saying "Well, son, it's like this." And then proceed to remind him of his
responsibilities of child support, how I like employees who do the right thing, tell the truth, etc etc. Then smile and ask, "you know what I'm talking about, right?" Might even
subtly remind him of current unemployment situation nationwide.
And then of course remind him to "consult his own tax advisor on how to fill out a W4
form properly to minimize withholding legally.

On a related note which you mention about robbers, what really irks me are those robbers who walk into a bank and don't even have the common courtesy to show the gun; just announce that they have a gun.
Used to the bank would honor such an employee who had common sense not to give them the money.

[Black Bart]

Absolutely right.

But there is nothing to prevent employer from counseling employee to do the right thing. Sometimes an
employer actually need to take a paternal interest in his employees in order to maintain the integrity of
his workforce and thus maintain productivity over the long haul.

Although you refuse to laugh at my jokes (grin), I am forced to admit that thy holier-than-thou position (double-grin) is holier-than-mine and such nobility simply cannot be ignored.

While we (including me) don't always practice what we preach, the right thing's obviously called for here -- not only for our own interest, but for that of the profession as a whole. We're off the hook and don't have to sign a jurat, but it seems to me there's an implied rule ("If you know, or have reason to know....") in there somewhere. To brush it off pleading "regulations" brings to mind those who fire employees for resisting robbers.

[S T]

From IRS on W-4

Here is a link
http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq/0,,id=199643,00.html
appears as no reporting is required any longer

I would just make sure to advise employer to obtain updated W-4 forms annually or on any changes throughout the year, from employees.

Sandy

[ChEAr$]

Again I say it is not the employer's business to determine this.

But there is nothing to prevent employer from counseling employee to do the right thing. Sometimes an
employer actually need to take a paternal interest in his employees in order to maintain the integrity of
his workforce and thus maintain productivity over the long haul.

[JG EA]

for a valid exempt W4: no tax liability last year AND expect no tax liability for this year. The employer has payroll records year to date at hand and can readily determine this, at least for a single wage earner with nothing exotic like K1s with
losses.

anyway, as DSI said, the employee gave in. Do you reckon he wanted to stay
employed in these days of precarious employment?

Again I say it is not the employer's business to determine this.

[JohnH]

And there is where the rubber meets the road, as they say. I'd be as firmly against the Federal government getting involved in what should be a state issue as I am in favor of individual states donig it cooperatively. But then that train has pretty much left the station already, hasn't it?

[ChEAr$]

I think MN has the right approach. More states should follow their lead and there should be cross-border cooperation on this issue.

Hmmm, cross border cooperation. ah, I know! Let IRS do it. Put one more question
on the 1040: Do you owe back child support? Yes.. No.. N/A

[JohnH]

I think MN has the right approach. More states should follow their lead and there should be cross-border cooperation on this issue.

[AuditorTurnedGood]

I know someone

who works for the county tracking down deadbeat parents. In MN they will throw the book at them if they can find them, which if they're in the state they usually can. Revoking driver's licenses, professional licenses, attaching every asset they can find. At the end of the day, if they guy owes back support, and a W2 is being filed with is SS number, chances are at some point (at least here) the county is just going to garnish the living daylights out of his paycheck.

I can, so some extent, understand not wanting to pay spousal maintainence, but child support? Seriously, they ARE your kids....

[Black Bart]

In theory it does,

...If the employee get more back in his paycheck this would not have a motive of reducing child support. The more he gets back the more will be taken away if based on a percentage. Child support is taken from the disposable net...

assuming they're on the up-and-up, do their parental duty, and play by the rules. As a practical matter it doesn't always work out like that in the real world.

I do four or five returns every year for filers (mostly men) who have not paid a cent during the year -- I don't know how or why; maybe the ex-wife doesn't pursue it or they can't be found. They frequently owe huge sums ($10/20/30K) which have been in arrears for years and file joint returns using an Injured Spouse form to shield new wife's withholding and EITC. If the debtor is self-employed (very common) or used an "Exempt" W-4, then no support at all will have been paid. His only "loss" is the confiscated share of EITC and even that's free -- courtesy of the U. S. Treasury which generously, if reluctantly, whittles away at deadbeats' liabilities year after year. As EITC grows by leaps and bounds, eventually the tables will be turned and taxpayers will owe them money.

It's a hell of a way to run a railroad.