Posts by ruggedmaker2

hollowmason64 said:It feels like things shifted a bit this year—I know for a fact they used to just unhook them back in the day.

It’s honestly the easiest thing in the world to just sit back, claim that nothing can be done, and then use that as an excuse to do absolutely nothing at all.

You've got a point there... It’s just that you always have to keep one eye on the inspectors breathing down your neck, and let's be honest, not everyone is cut from the same cloth. 🤷

The regulations actually changed back in January. They did it specifically so people don't lose their entire paycheck or maternity benefits all at once, only to end up getting bounced from one government office to another like a pinball. Now, you can actually set up a protected account before they even freeze your funds. You just need to have the right paperwork in hand.
And of course, you have to trek down to FIFA and wait in that endless line. Most people can't be bothered. The second they see a crowd of people staring them down, they just turn around and walk away.

hollowmason64 said:Haha—honestly, those ladies over at FIFA usually just brush you off anyway. Most of the time, they’ll tell you to just come back once the actual seizure hits. 😁
It’s one thing to talk about how things should work on paper, but honestly, when you're actually out there doing the work, reality hits a lot differently.

This is one of those absolute legal nonsense moves that just drives me up the wall. Honestly, if an employer actually intended to pay you a fair wage, they would have just done it in the first place. It feels like they’re just adding layers of red tape to justify being cheap. 🤣

Look, nobody at the FIN office is going to toss you out just because you show up with paperwork. You just have to actually accept the papers instead of running away from the mailman.
Two guys at my company set up protected accounts without any issues using the seizure notice before the deadline even hit.

As for that other point, it's true. The so-called payroll statement gets handed to the worker even when there's no money, simply because that's what the law demands. And according to the law, that statement counts as a legal seizure document.
The real issue is that some employers refuse to hand them over, and absolutely nobody reports them for it.

The deadline to pay wages is the 15th of the following month, but if there's zero cash in the bank, the deadline to provide that statement is the last day of that same month.

It's easy to just sit there, claim nothing can be done, and then do absolutely nothing about it.

Look, you aren't out there buying some official form or anything. It’s on your employer to cough up those statements proving they haven't paid you what they owe.
Once you've got those papers in hand, you take them straight to FIFA and they'll walk you through the whole process.
Honestly, if I were you, I'd probably just give FIFA a call first to get the full rundown on how this works.

hollowmason64 said:I’m more than convinced about that myself—the request was filed on May 14th, yet JPMorgan Chase didn't issue the decision until May 27th... funny how that works, right? 🤣
They're lightning fast when it comes to decisions like this, yet they leave us hanging for two whole weeks. 😁

True, but she can't actually open that protected account until the garnishment is already in motion, and since alimony and social assistance are exempt from seizure, there's a gap there.
Plus, the bank can clearly see the transaction codes for her deposits. If they happen to accidentally "seize" those protected payments during the process, the collector is supposed to return them... which, in my experience, never actually happens.
That part right there? That's illegal.

Actually, you can set up a protected account before the garnishment even starts, per the regulations regarding seizures of monetary assets.
All you have to do is take a copy of the notice or the court order—whatever paperwork you got showing that a seizure is imminent—down to the FIN.

If the seizure kicks off before you get that protected account sorted, they're going to drain everything from your current checking account. Then you’re stuck playing a game of bureaucratic hide-and-seek for a few days trying to get it back. They always eventually refund it, but man, it is such a massive headache. You need nerves of steel and way too much free time.
It's much safer to just open the protected account beforehand.

Alexander Cruz32 said:Hey, looking for some advice on behalf of a friend.

So, AT&T is threatening her with some kind of seizure based on a final court ruling. She tried to appeal the initial decision because she’s struggling financially, but she sent it via mail and missed the deadline, so the court ruled she has to pay (I think it's just a few hundred bucks in legal fees).
The thing is, she’s an unemployed single mom with a little kid, renting a place, and doesn't own anything worth anything—her only income is social security and child support. I'm pretty sure, by law, they aren't allowed to touch those funds. But here's my question: how can she stop them from freezing her account? I know it's illegal, but AT&T has a massive legal team, and I know these big companies sometimes freeze money they shouldn't. How does she protect herself? Can she do something right now to prevent this illegal seizure? And what happens if they go ahead and block her account even though they aren't supposed to?
I don't think seizing her property is even an option since I know you can't take stuff that's necessary for basic living.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Look, if they have a final court judgment, the seizure isn't illegal.
A creditor has every right to go after the money they are owed.
Seizures are carried out based on credible documentation, and if AT&T has that paperwork, they are perfectly within their rights to start seizing her funds.
AT&T has no clue whether her deposits are a paycheck, child support, or something else entirely.

What she can actually do is head down to her bank and set up a protected account specifically for the funds that are legally exempt. That way, her protected income goes there, and she can actually access it. Anything else—the non-protected stuff—has to go into a regular checking account, and that's what will get hit by the seizure.

Is there actually a minimum amount you have to hit if you're trying to get a refund on sales tax paid while traveling in another state?
I feel like I read some specific number somewhere once, but honestly, my memory is shot and I couldn't find anything useful on the IRS website either. Either I'm totally missing it, or everything online is just a giant, confusing mess. 😵

Like, could I realistically try to claim a $60 refund for sales tax I paid in Texas on hotel stays and gas?

Alexander Morgan33 said:I need to head over to an Unknown in Austin to pick up some furniture for the office. They’re going to charge me their local sales tax on the purchase. When we record this in our books, do we need to account for our own state sales tax too?
Someone mentioned that we pay the local tax at the store, and then we just calculate the difference to hit our 25% rate here at home. Is that how it works?

Does anyone know the actual process?

Look, if your company is registered for sales tax, there's no local tax to worry about. You just handle the tax accounting right here in the States and claim your input credit immediately.
All you have to do is give them your company's Tax ID so they can verify through the IRS that you're a legitimate business entity here in America.
If you're the one driving the goods back yourself, you'll need to provide some kind of proof that the stuff is actually leaving the state and heading across the border into another part of the country.

Now, if you buy the stuff without using a Tax ID, you're stuck paying the local tax upfront, but you still have the right to request a refund:
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-ID-Refund-Process

My developer is still ghosting me, so I’m sitting here with absolutely nothing to show for it 🙂
. Honestly, I’m just scrolling through this thread with pure envy, watching you guys actually getting your bookkeeping done. 😁

I’m still waiting on my new IRA and 401(k) statements to hit, but I’m guessing the sequence numbers will just keep rolling along.
It actually makes sense to me, honestly—it’s not like the fiscal year changes or anything.

Drew Rogers6 said:If I’m billing an American company for a transport service on the Budapest - New York City route—which used to be classified as importing goods—how does the invoicing work? Do I still bill it the old way, where the portion in Canada is tax-free and the part in the US includes sales tax?

And what happens if the route is New York City - Budapest? Before, that was considered an export, so it fell under the zero-rated tax rule.
Which specific section of the tax law covers this?

Thanks in advance! 🙂

Check this out for some clarity:
http://www.irs.gov/tax-guide/...second%20part.pdf Look at question number 9 and keep going from there.

Wait, which seminar were you actually at?

Nicole Lee6 said:That was my takeaway from the seminar.
So, essentially, if we are providing services between two business taxpayers where one is American and the other is either from the USA or another foreign nation, the American side doesn't charge sales tax on their invoice; instead, they include a clause stating the tax liability has been transferred under Section 17, Paragraph 1.

However, if it involves the delivery of goods, you use the exemption clause under Section 41.

They repeated it to us three times: reverse charge is mandatory only for services and triangular transactions; everything else falls under an exemption.

The whole debate centered on whether invoices for freighting goods intended for export should strictly state "reverse charge" per Section 17, or if they also need to mention the VAT exemption under that specific export provision.

But then why does Section 79 (7) clearly state:
(7) In cases where the recipient of goods or services is liable for the sales tax, the provider must note "reverse charge" on the invoice.😕

Good grief, 🙂 I am officially done reading about sales tax. Not one more word. I’m not touching a single page of the tax code until the IRS sends me an official response via email. This is just making my head spin even more.

So, I did a little digging on Google and stumbled upon this PowerPoint presentation.
The second I click the link, the whole thing just pops right up, and now I’m stuck because I have no clue how to actually embed the link itself 🤷 :zbunjena:

But here’s the deal:
http://www.google.com/#gs_rn=20&gs_ri...w=1024&bih=653

Just scroll down to that bottom link where it says (ppt) VAT effective July 1, 2013.pptx - Deloitte and that should trigger it.

Hope that makes sense, if it does... 🙈

Benjamin Palmer80 said:Yesterday, we finally got a written response from the IRS stating that invoices for the USA should only include the exemption clause from the law or regulation, without mentioning reverse charge.

this is getting 🤣
And get this—on the official IRS FAQ pages, they actually say something totally different:

question:
When invoicing for transport services provided to a business entity in another state, should we include a "reverse charge" note or a transfer of tax liability?
answer:
The general principle regarding the place of taxation for services is established by Section 17, Subsection 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (which aligns with Article 44 of the VAT Directive), so for transport services, the invoice must specify that the tax liability has been transferred pursuant to Section 17, Subsection 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

So, according to their own site, invoices for other states need that transfer note.

I fired off a few more questions about this mess today. Fingers crossed someone at the agency actually reads their emails and gets back to me.

I’ve got this nagging feeling that even after all this is over, we won't be any closer to seeing clearly. 🤣

I’m constantly refreshing those IRS pages, praying they’ll finally give us a straight answer about this miserable reverse charge mess. But nope... nothing 🤷

If I’m remembering this right, anyone pulling in income after January 1st, 2015, gets hit with the same VAT rules as the guys chasing capital gains. So, the government isn't going to lose much sleep over that little loophole.
Don't you worry about the state; they always find a way to squeeze us dry eventually. 😁

Raymond Martinez10 said:I'm just grabbing the last post from this thread. I'm stuck on one specific section of law 57.1.:
The right to deduct VAT (input tax) arises at the moment the obligation to account for deductible VAT occurs.
Does that imply input tax can only be deducted when the vendor actually incurs their own VAT liability? In other words—only when they've been paid? 🤷 😕

Look, it doesn't say the right to a credit kicks in when there's an duty to pay the sales tax. It says it happens when the calculation obligation hits, which is the day the invoice is issued. Period.

Nicole Lee6 said:I’m facing a bit of a dilemma here;
-is it legally acceptable for my domestic invoices to list nothing but my Social Security Number
-and for my international invoices (specifically B2B transfers) to show only my Tax ID?

Or am I required to include both identification numbers on every single invoice?

Look, for foreign stuff you need the VAT ID, and for domestic, the SSN works, but honestly, it doesn't hurt to just put both on everything.
The law just sets the bare minimum requirements for an invoice, but it won't bite if you include extra info.

Any R2 invoices that hit the desk before July 1st still follow the old rules—basically, you don't get to claim that input tax until both the invoice is issued and the bill actually gets paid.
But if you're looking at any R2s issued after July 1st, corporate taxpayers can finally jump the gun and claim that input tax immediately.

So, I hit up this FBI seminar last Friday, and they were preaching that reverse charge applies to pretty much every B2B deal where you're shifting the tax burden over to the buyer—doesn't even matter if the client is just down in another state or halfway across the globe.
But honestly? The more I dig into the fine print, the less sense it makes. It’s driving me absolutely nuts.