Recommended Posts
Quote[Reply] what does "common law employees" mean?
Read it yourself. I'm tired of carrying your sorry ass.
WHAT????????????
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Since when did you ever have to "carry my ass"?
I read. I didn't understand. I asked.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Quote[Reply]As a staffing/leasing company, are they not required to collect unemployment "taxes" from their client companies?
No. As a sovereign nation they are not required to collect unemployment taxes on their employees even if they are leased to other companies.
So, the Native American employer is playing by the rules and now the IRS wants to bend the rules to snag them? Screw the IRS.
It seems to me that they should be able to sue and recover costs associated with the IRS screwing with them in the first place.
OTOH, do you mean that the rules apply only when the employee is a Native American?
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Seems a small price to pay for the land stolen from them.
Blacks were brought here as slaves after being forcefully removed from their homeland and were humiliated for generations before being freed. Would you support them having to pay no income tax? Seems to me the Indians didn't get as short an end of the stick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
38,929,319 blacks. 2,932,248 indians. What's worse, genocide or slavery?
Both is worse. I wonder how many Africans lost their lives in the slave ships and died due to lack of healthcare or from beatings by the cruel slavemasters.
I say if we are going to give the Indians tax breaks, that we also give them to people of African decent. Let them open Casinos too. Why should the Indians get all the tax breaks and special treatment?
This issue of comparison also occurred to me. I think it's reasonable to explore the respective similarities vs. dis-similarities.
In any event, re: Native Americans, the laws exempting Indian tribes from certain taxation were enacted long before any of our lifetimes, for policy reasons that existed at the time. It's reasonable to explore whether those policy reasons still exists today. If they do, the law should continue. If not, the law should be either amended or repealed, as appropriate, to reflect current-day reality.
remibond 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Seems a small price to pay for the land stolen from them.
Blacks were brought here as slaves after being forcefully removed from their homeland and were humiliated for generations before being freed. Would you support them having to pay no income tax? Seems to me the Indians didn't get as short an end of the stick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity
38,929,319 blacks. 2,932,248 indians. What's worse, genocide or slavery?
Both is worse. I wonder how many Africans lost their lives in the slave ships and died due to lack of healthcare or from beatings by the cruel slavemasters.
I say if we are going to give the Indians tax breaks, that we also give them to people of African decent. Let them open Casinos too. Why should the Indians get all the tax breaks and special treatment?
That makes no sense. Slavery was terrible but black people in the US make up over 10% of the population. Indians are to all extents and purposes an endangered race on a worldwide scale. In the words of Chris Rock (quite possibly the first time he's ever been quoted in SC)
QuoteBlack people yelling "racism!" White people yelling "reverse racism!" Chinese people yelling "sideways racism!" And the Indians ain't yelling shit, 'cause they dead. So everybody bitching about how bad their people got it: nobody got it worse than the American Indian. Everyone needs to calm the fuck down.
QuoteQuote[Reply] what does "common law employees" mean?
Read it yourself. I'm tired of carrying your sorry ass.
WHAT????????????
Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
Since when did you ever have to "carry my ass"?
I read. I didn't understand. I asked.
Sorry. Was just funning you but the shit-eating grin didn't come through well. Which is why I went on to explain the payment of wages, benefits, policies and procedures, etc.
Common Law is merely the law from England from 600-1000 years ago. There is Common Law and Statutory law. So Common Law employment is like "what was an employe considered to be through history?"
That's it..
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteIn any event, re: Native Americans, the laws exempting Indian tribes from certain taxation were enacted long before any of our lifetimes, for policy reasons that existed at the time. It's reasonable to explore whether those policy reasons still exists today. If they do, the law should continue. If not, the law should be either amended or repealed, as appropriate, to reflect current-day reality.
The major question in my mind is "Is the Indian Nation a sovereign state, or survivors of genocide spread around the country ignored and/or treated like 3rd class citizens?"
For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.
So, presumably the employees of the Native American company would not be eligible for unemployment insurance if they were laid off. That would not be unique as some other categories of employers do not have to pay unemployment insurance either. I wonder if the employees understand that?
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
Bolas 5
QuoteSo, presumably the employees of the Native American company would not be eligible for unemployment insurance if they were laid off. That would not be unique as some other categories of employers do not have to pay unemployment insurance either. I wonder if the employees understand that?
This is the part that needs to be clarified. If the position is not eligible for unemployment, they shouldn't have to pay. If it is, they should.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
After reading this thread, I still can't tell if what they are doing is "technically" legal, but I would consider it a "loophole".
I think that closing loopholes such as this needs to be done, but I would move this one down to the lower end of the priority list. I'm not sure if its white guilt from my European ancestry or bias from my Native American ancestry, but right or wrong, I've got a soft spot for Natives Americans. I'm ok with looking the other way on this until we get a lot of other messes with tax law cleaned up.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
I think that closing loopholes such as this needs to be done, but I would move this one down to the lower end of the priority list. I'm not sure if its white guilt from my European ancestry or bias from my Native American ancestry, but right or wrong, I've got a soft spot for Natives Americans. I'm ok with looking the other way on this until we get a lot of other messes with tax law cleaned up.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
Quote
So, the Native American employer is playing by the rules and now the IRS wants to bend the rules to snag them? Screw the IRS.
It seems to me that they should be able to sue and recover costs associated with the IRS screwing with them in the first place.
What's happening is that the tribe is legally laundering the wages to help companies avoid paying employment taxes - hiring the employees and leasing them back.
QuoteOTOH, do you mean that the rules apply only when the employee is a Native American?
Nope. The tribe is the employer. The tribe is a sovereign nation. Employees of the sovereign nation don't have to pay unemployment insurance taxes. An indian employee of a US business would have those taxes withheld.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
dks13827 3
Everyone pay some tax !
Quote
What's happening is that the tribe is legally laundering the wages to help companies avoid paying employment taxes - hiring the employees and leasing them back.
While I am sure that is the IRS assertion (that it is merely a front I am sure the tribe asserts that this is a legitimate employment services agency. All depends on the specifics of the facts and it appears that the tribe managed to convince a panel otherwise. As you well know the whole issue rests on what can be proved or persuaded in court. I think you are right, if you can prove that the only reason is to avoid the unemployment tax then that would be illegal, but the IRS must not have met its burden.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
QuoteAs you well know the whole issue rests on what can be proved or persuaded in court. I think you are right, if you can prove that the only reason is to avoid the unemployment tax then that would be illegal, but the IRS must not have met its burden.
I agree and disagree. the intent (to evade taxes) is not relevant IF the tribe established what was necessary for the finding of a common law employer. As the decision stated:
QuoteAlthough the client,
not Mainstay, supervised the leased employees on a day-today basis, the employees were required to comply with Mainstay’s employment policies regarding such issues as smoking,
telephone use, timekeeping, and breaks. In this sense, the
leased employees were subject to the will and control of both
Mainstay and the client company. Moreover, Mainstay set the
level of compensation and had ultimate responsibility for paying employees—if a client failed to pay Mainstay’s invoice,
Mainstay paid the employees’ wages from its own bank
account. Mainstay treated the leased employees as its own for
tax purposes, issuing W-2 forms, withholding and remitting
income taxes, and paying the employer portion of FICA taxes.
Once they prove that they are a common-law employer, the REASON for that employment becomes irrelevant. This is a case where the tribe put something out there that is 100% legitimate in its structure with the effect of being employment tax free. It doesn't matter WHY it was set up - just that it was set up correctly.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
QuoteOnce they prove that they are a common-law employer, the REASON for that employment becomes irrelevant. This is a case where the tribe put something out there that is 100% legitimate in its structure with the effect of being employment tax free. It doesn't matter WHY it was set up - just that it was set up correctly.
Which is why I'm so confused about the concern.
It looks like we're not talking about a "loophole" but about a legitimate venture. So why the concern?
Saying "laundering" in one post and "100% legitimate" in another is very confusing to me.
Don't tell me this is just another attempt to screw the American Indian in some way....please don't.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteOnce they prove that they are a common-law employer, the REASON for that employment becomes irrelevant. This is a case where the tribe put something out there that is 100% legitimate in its structure with the effect of being employment tax free. It doesn't matter WHY it was set up - just that it was set up correctly.
Which is why I'm so confused about the concern.
It looks like we're not talking about a "loophole" but about a legitimate venture. So why the concern?
Saying "laundering" in one post and "100% legitimate" in another is very confusing to me.
Don't tell me this is just another attempt to screw the American Indian in some way....please don't.
A "loophole" is an advantage that can be taken by someone other than yourself and is lawful and in compliance with the tax code. Otherwise, it is a "deduction" or "credit".
***
I think that closing loopholes such as this needs to be done, but I would move this one down to the lower end of the priority list. I'm not sure if its white guilt from my European ancestry or bias from my Native American ancestry, but right or wrong, I've got a soft spot for Natives Americans. I'm ok with looking the other way on this until we get a lot of other messes with tax law cleaned up.
I think that closing loopholes such as this needs to be done, but I would move this one down to the lower end of the priority list. I'm not sure if its white guilt from my European ancestry or bias from my Native American ancestry, but right or wrong, I've got a soft spot for Natives Americans. I'm ok with looking the other way on this until we get a lot of other messes with tax law cleaned up.
Ok! To you it's not about the law but instead it's all about your *feelings* !
I guess that's one way to look at it and that attitude does bolster your ability to be a part of an illegal ,immoral ,occupying death squad in someone elses country.
Carry on then Garth!
QuoteA "loophole" is an advantage that can be taken by someone other than yourself and is lawful and in compliance with the tax code. Otherwise, it is a "deduction" or "credit"
Key point.
Otherwise it's good-to-go.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Does this loophole exist due to congressional action alone (and therefore closeable by them alone) or is it due to treaty? People bitch about "freebies" natives get around here, but they are all due to treaty rights and not reversible by the legislature.
I work for a native company on native land in the winter. I pay all my taxes just the same; the treaty natives do not. The non-treaty natives pay their taxes the same as the rest of us.
I work for a native company on native land in the winter. I pay all my taxes just the same; the treaty natives do not. The non-treaty natives pay their taxes the same as the rest of us.
Both is worse. I wonder how many Africans lost their lives in the slave ships and died due to lack of healthcare or from beatings by the cruel slavemasters.
I say if we are going to give the Indians tax breaks, that we also give them to people of African decent. Let them open Casinos too. Why should the Indians get all the tax breaks and special treatment?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites