T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
289.1 | Here's the original note | CHCLAT::HAGEN | Please send truffles! | Tue Aug 28 1990 16:40 | 49 |
289.2 | here's what i'd do | TIPTOE::STOLICNY | | Tue Aug 28 1990 17:31 | 13 |
| If I were in your shoes, I would probably pick option C. It's not
really like you have alot of options since the situation is short
term. What will you do if they say "No" to options A&B, anyways?
The only thing else that you might do is explain to them that you
will not be able to claim the money that you're paying them if they
don't claim it and perhaps they'll lower your weekly fee a bit.
Of course, I suppose that it is illegal for them to not claim the
income but that's not my problem (or yours necessarily).
Good luck.
Carol
|
289.3 | ????? | TIPTOE::STOLICNY | | Tue Aug 28 1990 17:37 | 6 |
| By the way, Lori, this wouldn't happen to be the same center that
Matthew was attending in early 1989, would it? The one where
you went through the salmonella problem?
Just curious,
Carol
|
289.4 | You can still claim it | SCAACT::COX | Kristen Cox - Dallas ACT Sys Mgr | Tue Aug 28 1990 17:40 | 6 |
| All you have to do is prove you TRIED to get their SS#. If they do not
provide it, then you can still claim it on your taxes (I don't know what
kind of trouble, if any, they may get into!). I would go ahead and submit
it to JH with an explanation letter, then claim it on taxes. Good Luck!
Kristen
|
289.5 | | CHCLAT::HAGEN | Please send truffles! | Tue Aug 28 1990 17:44 | 5 |
| RE -.1
>> All you have to do is prove you TRIED to get their SS#.
How can you prove this?
|
289.6 | Curious | NOVA::WASSERMAN | Deb Wasserman, DTN 264-1863 | Tue Aug 28 1990 17:47 | 1 |
| Just curious... what problems did the moderators have with this note?
|
289.7 | I'd be angry!! | NUGGET::BRADSHAW | | Tue Aug 28 1990 18:00 | 18 |
| Lori, how can they look you in the eye, after admitting they are
breaking the law, and refuse to give you a receipt when you have told
them that as a result of their actions, you are literally losing a
significant amount of money?
I just can't believe they'd have the nerve to do this. I'd try to be as
nice as possible since you want to maintain a positive relationship
with them, but boy, I'd feel really abused if I had to lose my dcra
funds because they wouldn't "do the right thing".
I am in the dependent care account program too. I'd be concerned about
using up your "buffer" funds for this purpose, when you may well need
them honestly sometime later in the year. ( I just had to use up my
surplus funds when I got a free month of daycare courtesy of my
mother-in-law while inbetween daycare providers and am nervous about
the lack of future funds.)
Good luck,
Sandy
|
289.8 | | CHCLAT::HAGEN | Please send truffles! | Tue Aug 28 1990 18:17 | 20 |
289.9 | maybe?? | TIPTOE::STOLICNY | | Tue Aug 28 1990 18:19 | 4 |
| Perhaps it's something as simple as them not understanding how to
claim money that isn't posted on a W-2 form???
Giving them a big benefit-of-the-doubt, carol
|
289.10 | Is this correct? | BUSY::DKHAN | | Tue Aug 28 1990 19:16 | 14 |
| It was my understanding that you could only get the daycare tax
credit for daycare costs not covered by the reimbursement fund.
I was told by the person who did our taxes that I could get the
tax credit even without the sitter's ss#. You give the sitter's
name, and it is left up to the IRS to go after her.
So, for the money that does not get covered by the reimbursement
fund, get the tax credit for, and give the women's names instead
of their ss#'s when filing this time.
Good luck.
Dot
|
289.11 | Rock and a hard place!!! | MAJORS::MANDALINCI | | Wed Aug 29 1990 08:12 | 34 |
| After having 2 nannies and doing it the legitimate route of paying
their taxes and SS quarterly, I'd personally opt to do it legitimately.
BUT, your situation is so temporary - 4 weeks. I don't know the
reimbursement program well but what happens when you go on vacation and
don't pay the daycare fees. Why can't the program see this as a 4 weeks
vacation from the program and the daycare?
If they won't give you the social security numbers to make this
legitimate, I would not pay the portion that is social security or
taxes. If they have a problem with that, then you can inform them that
you are claiming on your taxes that you employed them for 4 weeks and
they will have to "suffer the consequence" if the IRS comes after them
because you plan on keeping it legit!!!! I know it's hardball, it just
depends upon what game you wish to play. Remember, the IRS does not
take kindly to people avoiding taxes. In this case it is not only the
daycare providers who will be in trouble, it will be you because you
have hired someone illegally and did not withdraw and submit their
taxes and SS.
If you are going to claim them as an employee, expect to get alot of
forms from the IRS, spend alot of time filling out forms and then
have the IRS tell you you have filled out all the wrong forms and the
viscious circle starts!! It may not be worth it for a 4 week period -
it depends upon how much you have to lose from the reimbursement program.
Included on these forms is their SS# so you are already stuck. Not
providing a SS# means you must have hired someone who does not have
one (or a green card number), something that should not be done under
any circumstances.
Good luck with a difficult situation. I'd look into finding out what
happens if you take a break from the program first in order to keep
peace with these ladies (and the kids).
Andrea
|
289.12 | | CHCLAT::HAGEN | Please send truffles! | Wed Aug 29 1990 12:03 | 29 |
289.13 | lets take this one thing at a time... | HPSRAD::LINDSEY | | Wed Aug 29 1990 16:38 | 80 |
|
Whew! Lots of issues here. I would like to address a few...
RE: .4 and .5
Its true, you just have to try to get their SS number - at least for
this past tax year. There is some form you can get from the IRS and
booklet that describes what info you need to take the child care credit
(form 2441 - I believe). Its like a w4 that you can give to your
day care provider which requests name, address and SS number.
As far as proving you tried they are suppose to sign their names to
this form.
RE .7
I must be missing something here. If you got a free month of daycare
then you should be in no danger of lacking future buffer funds. If
you don't pay for a period of time, then would have an excess of money
in the account. If your daycare costs are more than the max you can
deduct or you have requested being deducted, then you will be able to
recoup some or all of the excess funds. If you deduct weekly exactly
what you need to pay your sitter, then yes, you would loose the funds
you set aside for those 4 weeks (unless your new sitter is more
expensive).
RE .8
I don't believe them when they said that the DCU checks were held for
9 days! That's illegal, even if its an out of state check, the max
hold is something like 3 to 5 days. This legislation on this was
just passed in the last year or so. (Wish I could remember the exact
rules - call DCU about it)
RE .10
You can also take the Child Care Credit as long as the total amount
of monies you paid out to child care (including the Dependent Care
amounts) is no more than the max on form 2441 (that's $2400 for one
child, $4800 for 2 or more). So, since the Dependent Care max is
$5000, if you have only one child and you took out of Dependent
Care account $2400 and you gave your sitter another $400 dollars
that didn't get reimbursed (because NO Monies were in the account -
not cause you forfeited them) - too bad - you reached the max child
care amount allowed on form 2441 - child care credit. Remember if
you forfeited the money in the account, you still got a tax break
from it (it wasn't taxed, so you can't take a double whammy and then
take a credit on top of it on form 2441)
RE .11
The base noter is not an employer (as she stated). These people are
considered self-employed. They are responsible for taxes, SS, etc
not the people using their services. If the sitter is working in your
home, then you are considered the employer and are responsible for not
only withholding of taxes and SS, but FICA and unemployment as well!
In this case, I don't believe their is any liability or fault on the
part of the base noter. She should try to document that she tried to
get their SS number and as long as she provides the name and address
of the provider, she is entitled to the deduction (Of course this is
a moot point since at $130/week she won't be able to take the child
care credit and John Hancock won't release the funds without the
receipts and SS numbers)
RE .12
According to my quick calculations, you should be ok as far as
retrieving any monies left in the John Hancock Account that were not
able to be used during this 4 week period. During these four weeks
you will have an extra $384 (96 * 4) that you can't claim. But over
the next 13 weeks (oct-dec) you will have incurred expenses of $1690
dollars and would only have put in (96*13) or $1248. A difference of
$442, SO you will use up the extra $384 that is in your account from
that 4 week period of not being able to claim the expense.
In summary - its not right for them to do what they are attempting to
do, but in reality, it appears to make no difference in your own
financial situation.
Sue
|
289.14 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Thu Aug 30 1990 13:37 | 5 |
| re DCU checks being held:
Perhaps they were fishing for cash payment. It doesn't sound like these
folks believe that tax laws apply to them, and cash payments are easier
to hide than check payments.
|
289.15 | | CHCLAT::HAGEN | Please send truffles! | Thu Aug 30 1990 16:28 | 7 |
| RE: -.1
>> DCU checks:
>> Perhaps they were fishing for cash payment.
No, because they didn't have a problem with the other parents' checks, and
they still pay by check.
|
289.16 | fight | TOOK::CURRIER | | Thu Aug 30 1990 16:44 | 5 |
| If I were you and I paid them at the end of the week, I would withold
the last weeks payment unitl I recieved a SS#. I would write them a
letter to that effect and keep a copy. I would also tell them that I
was planning to deduct the money from my taxes. They sound like
losers.
|
289.17 | | CSCMA::PEREIRA | Pam-a-lam-a-ding-dong | Fri Aug 31 1990 16:34 | 19 |
| Just thought I would add this footnote:
I am in no way excusing or condoning what the sitters are attempting
to do. I think they are wrong.......
I don't know where you are, but in the state of MA you must have
a license to provide Family Daycare (in the home of the provider).
Maybe these ladies thought that if they gave you their SS#'s, the
IRS would check up on them to see if they had a license to practice
FAmily Daycare......I guess for them it was the lesser of two evils...
Not having a license or tax evasion....both are wrong. And a license
is fairly easy to get in MA...only a $15 fee and an inspection...which
I am sure they would pass...if they had dangerous situations in
their homes, I am sure you wouldn't be sending your child there.
I know this doesn't help you in your current situation but, I thought
it might give you some insight to their motives...right or wrong.
Pam
|
289.18 | not so easy | MCIS2::WALTON | | Fri Aug 31 1990 16:59 | 5 |
| No, actually it is quite difficult to get the license (most homes won't
pass on the first try). Also, I am not sure that the state *requires*
licensing. You are of course required to pay taxes on the money.
Sue
|
289.19 | I wouldn't Trust Them | NRADM::TRIPPL | | Fri Sep 14 1990 15:37 | 25 |
| At one point I was exploring the possibility of open home daycare,
instead of returning to this world I now enjoy...talking to grownups!!
I sent to the Office for Children for the info packet. One of the
first and most prominent statements in the literature clearly states
that "anyone who takes care of children not their own, for pay or not
Is not allowed to do so without a license"!! My second point, is even
though you may not be using these ladies in a home daycare situation
presently, you can still make a complaint to the Office for Children
(I'm assuming this situation occured in MA)
I would personally hesitate to have these ladies take care of my child
give their actions over the past four weeks in their home. If they are
trying to hide the money they'r taking in, plus the fact that they're
breaking the law by not being licensed, I would be really be asking
myself what will they hide from me about the events of the day with
regard to the care of my children. I can only think of a worst case
scenario? (Think about that case in Calif, with that daycare center
where the man (Tookie something?) and his mother were acused of
kiddy-porn!) It was supposed to be a "good" daycare center!!
Personally I'd get as far away from these people as possible. Kids DO
flex, and you will certainly find as good, possibly better daycare
somewhere else!!
LYN
|
289.20 | | HYEND::C_DENOPOULOS | FantasiesFullfilledWhile-U-Wait | Tue Mar 03 1992 19:27 | 10 |
|
Well, this was a long time ago, but LYN, I think you're overdoing the
comparison there! I wouldn't compare these people who are trying to
make some extra bucks by not claiming the child care to someone
involved in kiddy-porn.
I wonder if the base noter asked them to reduce the amount she pays by
the amount being saved on taxes!
Chris D.
|
289.21 | I think its different than that... | RANGER::PEACOCK | Freedom is not free! | Wed Mar 04 1992 14:19 | 14 |
| > Well, this was a long time ago, but LYN, I think you're overdoing the
> comparison there! I wouldn't compare these people who are trying to
> make some extra bucks by not claiming the child care to someone
> involved in kiddy-porn.
At the risk of not getting this right, I'll comment here... I don't
think that her point was to compare the two groups of people you
mention. Instead, I think the point was to say that once they were
working "outside the law", so to speak, that the potential for
further, more serious infractions, was greater.
Does that make sense?
- Tom
|
289.22 | | HYEND::C_DENOPOULOS | FantasiesFullfilledWhile-U-Wait | Wed Mar 04 1992 16:05 | 16 |
|
>> Instead, I think the point was to say that once they were
>> working "outside the law", so to speak, that the potential for
>> further, more serious infractions, was greater.
Tom, I'm not sure I see the difference. Why is there a better
potential? I know a few people that daycare in their home "under the
table" and I would trust them much more than a regular daycare. Even
my wife did it for awhile when she was between jobs. Does that mean
there's more potential for my wife to get involved in kiddy porn than,
say, your wife who may not have done "under the table" daycare? That's
sure what the original note made it sound like to me. Maybe I'm
reading something wrong, but I don't see where.
Chris D.
|
289.23 | | RANGER::PEACOCK | Freedom is not free! | Wed Mar 04 1992 17:53 | 31 |
|
> Tom, I'm not sure I see the difference. Why is there a better
> potential? I know a few people that daycare in their home "under the
> table" and I would trust them much more than a regular daycare. Even
> my wife did it for awhile when she was between jobs. Does that mean
> there's more potential for my wife to get involved in kiddy porn than,
> say, your wife who may not have done "under the table" daycare? That's
> sure what the original note made it sound like to me. Maybe I'm
> reading something wrong, but I don't see where.
I can't really answer that, Chris. Maybe Lyn can comment when she
gets a chance.
Is there more potential for someone who does one illegal activity
to partake in another - for most of us here and the people we know,
probably not, no. Does driving over the posted speed limit as many
people do nearly every day mean that we will get into something
more serious involving cars, like stealing them - of course not.
However, I suppose if you wanted to try to chose who was more
trustworthy, that would be a data point to be aware of.
On the other hand, if I were doing something illegal - for example,
if I were working at a job where I was under age for that job - I
would probably be less likely to report problems if others around
me or my employer were doing something illegal too.
< Rule 7 - there is no black and white answer in real life! >
Peace,
- Tom
|
289.24 | using the gavel | TNPUBS::STEINHART | Laura | Wed Mar 04 1992 18:15 | 10 |
| Folks, let's steer the conversation toward the topic at hand - how to
handle daycare providers who request payment "under the table".
I don't feel that a philosophical discussion about lawbreaking is
appropriate here. Perhaps that would be more appropriate in another
notes file. I don't want to see this go down a rathole. OK?
Thanks,
Laura
co-mod
|
289.25 | | HYEND::C_DENOPOULOS | FantasiesFullfilledWhile-U-Wait | Wed Mar 04 1992 19:09 | 4 |
|
O.K Laura. You're the boss!
Chris D.
|
289.26 | | RANGER::PEACOCK | Freedom is not free! | Thu Mar 05 1992 14:49 | 4 |
| Ooooops. Sorry 'bout that.
- Tom
|