As noted above, there is a big difference between having compassion for his situation and arguing that he should be absolved of his tax responsibility.

With today's tax code, I find it a little hard to believe that someone who is truly destitute would owe any tax at all, much less enough to make the IRS come garnish your wages.

Let's be clear, it must be a decent amount of money in order for the IRS to put forth the effort to garnish wages.

I agree. But Byron didn't give us enough info. It's quite possible to make way, way below the threshold for federal income tax, but then get socked for payroll taxes, which are double for the self-employed. But then I don't think the IRS deals with payroll taxes, so maybe that's not the case with this guy.

capitalism at all costs; down with socialistic programs; every man for himself; if you can't make money you are choosing to be a loser;

wait, the guy is a friend of a frequent board contributor? he's got a kid with special needs? then i hereby arbitrarily determine his case to be worthy of consideration for abatement!


and some of you people would probably cry foul if a politician helped a buddy out of a tax jam.


kudos to those of you who at least know where you stand on such things and stick to it....regardless of which side you lean towards.

not necessarily.

Sometimes I wait for Higgins to answer so I can just go: +1 :). Seriously Rick, that's why I disdain the conservative/liberal labels, 'cause I'm just all over the map depending upon the topic at hand. Show me someone that's "trying", and depending upon their circumstances (a kid with "special needs"), I'll probably give 'em the shirt off my back. Calling someone a "tax cheat" and saying they "suck" without knowing their circumstances is a bit much. What if the guy has ALWAYS paid his taxes year after year and never taken a cent off the "government teat", but just recently hit a rough stretch (thanks to GWB's policies :)...I just had to) and the price of EVERYTHING, meds, gas, food, etc. skyrocketing. If you were just barely making it, and had to choose between paying Uncle Sam and taking care of your kid, what would you do? It's not as if the tax bill for a struggling musician is going to make a dent in how much our politicians borrow from China to send to Iraq anyways. I have no tolerance for deadbeats either, but I give him the benefit of doubt (based upon Byron's post) until proven otherwise.

I don't think so. The IRS does not treat people equally at all, and so sometimes political connections are the only way to get satisfaction. We all see commercials every day for tax resolution firms. If the IRS was always right, I doubt they'd ever settle for a tiny fraction of the amount originally owed. Our tax code and its enforcment is so screwed up, that I'd not hesitate to try to enlist political help if I thought the IRS was coming after me unfairly. It's one thing to be slow in paying back taxes. It's quite another when the IRS arbitrarily audits you, says you own them a ton and it was so long ago that you have no appeals left. That's when you call your senator's case worker. Nothing at all wrong with that. And we all remember seeing IRS employeed testify on the Hill in 1998 with their identities shielded for fear of reprisals from the IRS. That's how the IRS rolls.

I can't argue with what you said but I don't have a problem being inconsistent at times :)

I asked Byron about a "benefit" to help the guy out...not that he be absolved of his responsibilities. The guy "might" be doing his ABSOLUTE best to care for his child and just can't quite make it (and still NOT turn to the gov. for a handout like some do), and then imo, he definitely does not "suck". I just don't know his circumstances...

just quoted a portion of your post but there were misconceptions throughout. the highlighted section in particular is not the case. in my experience (and i'm the firms offer in compromise guy) the IRS treats everyone the same. can't speak to what happens to nat'l politicians however. you owe and you don't pay then it's letters followed by more letters followed by garnishments and/or liens etc. doesn't matter who you are.

those commercials by idiots like ronnie doitsch and 'taxmasters' are simply an invitation to pay $3,000 for what amounts to 2 hours of someones time collecting your information and filling out two (maybe three) IRS forms. There is NO magic in them, they are simple math. you show the irs what you have and what you will earn and if the math works and you convince them that you're not going to earn substatially more in the future then you get your break.

the concept of settling for pennies on the dollar like some credit card debt is nonsense and advertising to this effect has cause the situation to go from difficult to darn near impossible for folks filing these forms.

I understand your entire post, however are you suggesting that because people may have difficulties paying their taxes they should then be absolved of those taxes? If so, who determines who qualifies? The PPOT board? I would bet there are a lot of people whose stories are just as (if not more) sad. Should they also be absolved of their civic responsibility?

P.S. For the record, I never called anyone a "tax cheat" or said anyone "sucks".

OK now that's the responsible, well thought out and considerate version of what i was trying to get to.

IRS most certainly deals with Payroll Taxes, and yes Rick Lee, you are right. Self Employment taxes are 15%, they pay the Employers + the employees tax. So if you show income of 10K (below poverty level) you owe $1530 in Self Employment Taxes at the end of the year, not easy to come by if you've been struggling all year. There may be EIC and stuff but you have to fill in the form right, the IRS won't do it for you. Once you tell the IRS you owe it, you do, unless you amend it.

Hopefully, he makes more than 10k as a Musician, but the percent still holds true. The key is offsetting the income with expenses to show a lower net.

He needs to see a good tax guy.

I thought payroll taxes went to CMS and SSA. Worst part about payroll taxes is that you're taxed on them as income both when you get your paycheck and again when you withdraw Soc. Sec.

Don't be so sure of that. I would most certainly like to hear the "back story" before passing judgement on anyone in that situation. There are many, many situations that can lead to garnishment of wages. Some would earn my compassion, some would not.

Like berretafan says, "not necessarily". My wife, as a nurse now working in a supervisory role, has over 70 nurses working for her spread accross several clinics. She, being the manager, has to deal with garnishments levied against those employees. Some that come in from the IRS are for less money than the cost of the paperwork to submit them. If your typical IRS agent discovers a discrepancy, he has no legal leeway to determine it's not enough to bother with. They have to persue it; the numbers are irrelevant.

Unfortunately (maybe it's a sign of the times), many of her nurses are young, single mothers. Granted, some are irresponsible and probably always will be. She has no trouble dismissing those for cause when the garnishments start - it's a financial burdern on the employer as well, complying with the law on this. Others have simply had a bad turn of events in their lives. It can be anything. She will bend over backwards for them, keeping them on in an effort to help them. Some have proven to be long term, reliable, responsible employees after getting over whatever hurdle it may have been.

The point is, we have no way of knowing to which group Byron's friend belongs. We have, however, gotten to "know" Byron a bit, and he is a stand up guy. So, by extension, if Byron is willing to stand up for this guy, that is good enough for me.

I truly feel sorry for those of you so quick to judge in cases like this. Your world would appear to be too black and white for my tastes. You have tried and convicted based upon the thinnest of evidence, or rather more like none at all. Don't get me wrong - I'm not giving him any kind of a free pass - it's just that I'm not quite ready to string him up just yet.

I just got the new, and as stated, this is a part of my job I do not enjoy, just as letting someone go. The amount is around $10K, clearly I'm not going into any more details, that just wasn't the way I wanted to start my day.:(
One thing that I will share, his ex-wife put him in debt and pretty sure the tax papers were going to her. And, as stated, this could be a few years old, well all know how the IRS works.

Sorry 'bout that...the "tax cheats suck" was in reference to someone else's post (I knew it wasn't you) but I wasn't clear about that part. Yes, I think Byron's friend should pay his taxes, it was just the lack of compassion shown by some (not you) that triggered some of my responses on this thread.

edited: ps: after reading my post, I called you by name (due to the conservative/liberal part), but most of my response was not directed to you specifically.

There are a LOT of fine people on this board, including the one who posted that "tax cheaters suck"... I hope no one takes my responses personally on this thread.

let's not go too far here. ;)

OK, I take it back! Seriously, I do agree that "tax cheaters suck", don't get me wrong about that part, it's just that I was thinking along the lines of him not "cheating", but just being in a difficult situation. I'll say this emphatically...ex-wives who put you in debt with the IRS DO suck :).

I would think this is very much the same conversation that bigshots have when they are derailing justice for the benefit of their cronies.



and by the way, Byron's buddy got a LOT of letters demanding payment prior to this garnishment. if Byron asked for $$ to help pay the childs medical bills i'd most certainly be willing to step up. but Byron has determined that this guy is worthy of being subsidized by the rest of us. all by himself. he had that idea before he consulted us.

i'm not saying i wouldn't be in the very same situation if i were this guy but i most certainly wouldn't be claiming that the man was out to get me. florida is FULL of tax cheats and they all have a story of woe.

Could very well be. I would bet the context is entirely different, however. There is a world of difference between the sort of empathy I was aluding to and the "wink wink, nudge nudge..." spirit of the sort of conversation to which you alude. I hope you understand the difference.