[ale] GnuCash [OT]

Wed Aug 1 17:01:03 EDT 2012

Again this is incorrect because there is a long standing principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse".   That is to say whether you've been through training or not you can be held personally liable if you're in a position to make the payment happen and don't.    You might get away with saying "I'm a mail room clerk and didn't see the mail in the first place.   You'd be less likely to get away with saying "I'm an accountant that fills out the monthly tax form but didn't realize the requirement so never paid it. "

In point of fact I mentioned the training where I'd learned about estimated payments.   What I didn't mention was that a buddy of mine worked for the Georgia DOR at the time (he had earlier worked with me at this job) and when I mentioned to him later the discussion I'd had with our erstwhile boss he told me that the State had actually begun a crackdown on estimated payments about 2 months after I'd started paying them so it was a good thing I'd responded as I had.

Note that when I say you're personally responsible I mean only if the tax (and/or any penalties/interest thereon) hasn't been paid.   As I noted previously this is all about the government (whichever one it is) getting its money - not about seeing who they can harass (usually).   Your example of payments not being made in a timely fashion would not likely get an individual in trouble so long as the payments were ultimately made before the taxing authority had to come looking for the payment.   Also they'd be less likely to hold an individual at low level personally responsible if they thought they could get it from the organization or someone at higher level.    That is to say they're not going after that mail room clerk UNLESS the organization is defunct and the CEO is unreachable (or untouchable because he has expensive lawyers).   However they can't get the payment from parties that would otherwise be responsible they will certainly go after the parties they can reach.  

There is a principle lawyers like to speak of called "empty cockpit or empty saddle" which means there isn't much use going after folks that can't likely pay.  This is why some lawsuits name entities that aren't directly responsible for actions but might be perceived indirectly responsible.  (e.g. the first time I saw a hazing death lawsuit it was filed against the University but NOT against the fraternity - the lawyers explained it was due to this principle.)    Will the mail room clerk be the first person the taxing authority goes after?  Not likely.   Will they eventually go after the mail room clerk if they can't get their money from anyone else and think they can show he willfully prevented the check from going out?  Yes.

I should note however that I don't recall any cases of mail room clerks being so pursued.  I did however see other various low level accounting clerks and non-accounting personnel being so pursued and losing the court cases.

-----Original Message-----
From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Jim Kinney
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 3:50 PM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
Subject: Re: [ale] GnuCash [OT]

IANAL!!!

I can see why a person who has been through a state tax payment training program could be held liable for their direct (in)action. I can't see how a lowly mail clerk can be held to the same standards unless they are also put through the same mandatory training as the person who actually fills out the forms and generates the tax checks.

That said, I can see several legitimate reasons to cry "Stop the Tax payment!". Mainly if the realization that what is about to be sent is wrong and there is time to correct it. Or some other form of mistake.

I guess I'm confusing "don't pay now" with "don't pay ever". The first is a fine and late fees. The other is substantially more horrid.

I do know from a time when my wife handled outgoing mail for her employer that once that postage meter mark was applied, the items were property of US Mail and "BAD THINGS" would happen if it was not in the system on the same day as that postage stamp date said it was.

I just wanna wright code for pacemakers....easier...less liability  :-)

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM, Lightner, Jeff <JLightner at water.com> wrote:
> You're dead wrong.
>
> As I indicated the case law is very clear.   Orders that prevent tax payments are deemed illegal so you should not follow them with or without a witness.  In many of the cases I read there was documentary evidence (e.g. signed memos) in which the person was specifically ordered not to do something and the courts always held that the order was illegal so could not be followed so the person receiving it was still personally responsible for the payment.    As I noted previously many of these findings seemed unreasonable and/or unfair to me but that doesn't change the fact that they were made.
>
> Imagine if you had witnesses and a written memo telling you to murder the CEO of the competing corporation.   Do you think the courts would say you weren't responsible for the murder because you had them?    In point of fact they'd likely get your witnesses on conspiracy and/or abetting charges for NOT reporting the order before the murder occurred.
>
> MAYBE you'd be able to make a deal to save your own neck by implementing the guy that gave you the order (in criminal settings prosecutors always like to go for the highest profile person they think they can get) but that would be a deal rather than a court finding.   (For example Sammy "The Bull" was able to make a sweet deal for himself despite being the admitted hit man for multiple murders because he was able to help the  Feds put Gotti away and it was Gotti they really wanted.)
>
> However in these tax cases the main issue is the Government wants its money and they're going to get it from whoever they can.   Personally I'd be worried about being a "witness" to an order about not paying taxes because it wouldn't surprise me if a court would hold that I became a party to the illegal order by NOT reporting it when I heard it and therefore became personally responsible even though prior to such an event I was not in a position to pay the taxes.
>
> Of course I should say IANAL - all of what I've written is based on what I was reading about actual tax cases back in the late 80s.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jim Kinney
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:45 PM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] GnuCash [OT]
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Lightner, Jeff <JLightner at water.com> wrote:
>> OK I misunderstood your earlier email.   However, as I noted before whether you signed such a thing for the State of Georgia and not the IRS is immaterial.   Court findings were generally that if you CAN pay and don't there is no excuse and you become personally liable.   I saw these cases at all levels (city, county, state, IRS,  SSN etc...).
>>
>> If you are able to generate payroll tax payments to the IRS (and SSN) but for any reason do not do so you are personally responsible.     If you have access to the checks and can write them you must do so.  If you have signing authority for checks written by others you must sign.  If you are in the mail room you must mail the checks.   ANY place where an individual COULD have effected the payment being made but DIDN'T they become personally responsible.    Orders to the contrary are deemed illegal by the courts so even if you're a lowly mail clerk and the CEO of your Fortune 500 company comes and tells you NOT to mail the checks that just landed on your desk you can become personally responsible for the payment if it is never made.
>>
>> There were also cases about business partners/ex-spouses that had clearly violated the law unbeknownst to the other party but the courts have generally held they are responsible still because of the linked nature of the taxes.   I think subsequent law has changed some of the latter though - these days divorced spouses have to show custody orders to claim children.   In the past even with such orders where a wife clearly had custody and claimed the children she'd end up being held accountable because the deadbeat dad had also claimed the children and HE couldn't pay.
>>
>> Many of the cases I read boggled my mind by the apparent unfairness or unreasonableness implied.  (What mail room clerk is going to argue with a CEO?).   However in reality it is very simple:  If you don't want to become personally liable for a payment you have ignore such orders and let them fire you.   (Ideally what you'd actually do is resign before the payment was due so you couldn't be seen as the one that impeded the remittance.)
>
>
> What the mail room clerk is supposed to do is physically hand the envelopes to the suit demanding they not be sent and inform them the envelopes are now their personal responsibility and have a witness to this event.
>
> The exception to this is if the envelopes already have a mail room applied postage meter stamp on them. In that case, they are already mailed and the exec demanding the envelopes can face federal prison time for interfering with the US mail.
>
> No judge of any quality will enforce interference laws on the mail room clerk with a witness of any quality to the boss ordering the interference to occur.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of 
>> mike at trausch.us
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 12:44 PM
>> To: ale at ale.org
>> Subject: Re: [ale] GnuCash [OT]
>>
>> On 08/01/2012 11:59 AM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
>>> Right but it’s one thing to be on the hook for something that you “own”
>>> (even if you’ve incorporated) and being on the hook for a much 
>>> larger corporation that at the time was collecting more in monthly sales taxes
>>> than my annual salary.   For your corporation you may feel personally
>>> responsible even when you’re not legally responsible.
>>
>> No, I actually had to submit my name and SSN to Georgia's Department 
>> of Labor, and agree to accept personal liability for this 
>> corporation's
>> (payroll) taxes to be paid to Georgia.
>>
>> To contrast, I had to make no such guarantees to the IRS.
>>
>>> For someone
>>> else’s business taking personal responsibility for the things you 
>>> can control is one thing – taking it for things that you can’t control is
>>> another issue.   Allowing someone in authority to try to make you
>>> operate contrary to laws/rules is just begging for it.    Even if you
>>> don’t get held personally responsible when it hits the fan you’re apt to
>>> pay the consequences in other ways.   There were many accountants at
>>> Enron who might not have been part of the actual scams but they saw 
>>> what was happening and didn’t do anything to stop it – they all 
>>> ended up out of work and if they had the company retirement plan 
>>> heavily loaded with Enron stock also lost much of their savings.
>>
>> I think we're mixing issues... Enron's was about accounting fraud, if I remember correctly.  WRT that, yes, everyone who touches it can wind up being personally liable.
>>
>> Of course, right at the moment, I am also the sole person working with the books, so I have that to deal with as well... but we're also not a public corporation, nor do I plan to be.  Having public shareholders changes a corporate environment in a way that I would be very uncomfortable with unless I were to simultaneously disassociate myself from the corporation in every way conceivable, including getting someone else to agree to accept personal liability for GA taxes that the corporation owes.
>>
>>         --- Mike
>>
>> --
>> A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense.
>>                                    --- Carveth Read, “Logic”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Athena®, Created for the Cause™
>> Making a Difference in the Fight Against Breast Cancer
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
>> ----------------------------------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at 
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
>
> --
> --
> James P. Kinney III
>
> Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other. It's like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won't fatten the dog.
> - Speech 11/23/1900 Mark Twain
>
> http://electjimkinney.org
> http://heretothereideas.blogspot.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at 
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at 
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo

--
--
James P. Kinney III

Every time you stop a school, you will have to build a jail. What you gain at one end you lose at the other. It's like feeding a dog on his own tail. It won't fatten the dog.
- Speech 11/23/1900 Mark Twain

http://electjimkinney.org
http://heretothereideas.blogspot.com/

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo