Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Buying a Fedex Ground Route
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bacha29" data-source="post: 2064129" data-attributes="member: 58386"><p>In the case I pointed out was that X wanted those guys tax returns to be used to defend their claim that the plaintiffs were IC"s and the judge would have none of it. In addition I talked to a representative of the law firm representing the plaintiffs in a pending class action. I pointed out to that person that any future out of court lump sum settlements must be prorated over the years that the suit covered and must identify the portion of the settlement that represents a reimbursemnt for employer taxes that the IC payed but should have been payed by X. From what I understand from the CA settlement they were given a lump sum all in the year 2016 and the guys were subject to backup withholding and most likely will be put in a higher tax bracket.Unless they can go back in and amend their returns for the years in question then it would appear that they will be double taxed. Meaning that if they payed self employment taxes for the years in question and payed the federal income tax on self employment income which later was ruled to be employee wages then the settlement should be identified as reimbursement. Again I'm only going on the information I have obtained because I'm not part of the Ca settlement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bacha29, post: 2064129, member: 58386"] In the case I pointed out was that X wanted those guys tax returns to be used to defend their claim that the plaintiffs were IC"s and the judge would have none of it. In addition I talked to a representative of the law firm representing the plaintiffs in a pending class action. I pointed out to that person that any future out of court lump sum settlements must be prorated over the years that the suit covered and must identify the portion of the settlement that represents a reimbursemnt for employer taxes that the IC payed but should have been payed by X. From what I understand from the CA settlement they were given a lump sum all in the year 2016 and the guys were subject to backup withholding and most likely will be put in a higher tax bracket.Unless they can go back in and amend their returns for the years in question then it would appear that they will be double taxed. Meaning that if they payed self employment taxes for the years in question and payed the federal income tax on self employment income which later was ruled to be employee wages then the settlement should be identified as reimbursement. Again I'm only going on the information I have obtained because I'm not part of the Ca settlement. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
Buying a Fedex Ground Route
Top