Posts by Nicole Lee6

cosmictinker24 said:It's just pure nonsense—grouping daily, weekly, and annual leave all under one heading. What is that even supposed to achieve??
I honestly have no idea how I'm going to pull this off... if anyone has any suggestions, please, I'm begging!
Personally, I just log whichever columns are relevant for that specific month (it's simpler that way)... I work five days a week, eight hours a day, and that's it. No weekends for me...

Now, I'm once again stuck on this "weekly rest" requirement. Does it have to be at least ? consecutive hours? For instance, if an emergency services driver pulls a shift Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 4 PM, then goes out on a call Saturday from 6 PM until 2 AM on Sunday, and they are required to have a continuous 24-hour weekly rest (meaning they shouldn't drive again until at least 2 AM Monday to satisfy that 24-hour block), how am I supposed to log that in a summary? Do I put down 56 hours total (8h from Friday + 18h from Saturday + 22h from Sunday + 8h from Monday), even though those weren't continuous? Or do I split it into 26h (Friday to Saturday) + 30h (Sunday to Monday)? Or is there some other way to handle this?🙂

cosmictinker24 said:But I’m really stuck on point 9—absences from the workplace:
- Does this include time taken for breaks (daily, weekly, or vacation)???? Are we seriously supposed to log a 30-minute lunch break under daily leave? And I don't even get what they mean by weekly leave... up until now, I’ve only ever recorded annual vacation... I could really use some clarification here.

I’m in the exact same boat; this is all very unclear to me too. Previously, we just had an "Annual Leave" column—meaning I'd only record it during the specific month an employee actually took their vacation; otherwise, the column stayed empty. Now, are they removing the "Annual Leave" and "U.S. 42 days" columns to make room for one giant umbrella category called "Time Away From Work," which then branches out into all those sub-categories listed in point 9? Or am I only supposed to see the specific categories that happen to apply to us on the list?!

9) Time away from work:

– time spent on leave (daily, weekly, and annual), I have a bit of a logistical headache here. Since we run a towing service, we often get calls from HKA and have to head out immediately. How am I supposed to organize all that under these new rules? My employee's contract states that hours worked during emergency interventions count toward redistributed working hours. So, if I'm logging his time, would I write something like 12 hours in the "Daily Leave" column and then 2 hours (for a Saturday night intervention between 10 PM and midnight) in the "Night Shift" column because he gets a night premium? Then, on a slower day, if I send him home early or tell him to show up two hours late, would I log that as 6 hours of regular work and 2 hours of "Daily Leave"??!? 🤔

– non-working days and holidays established by special regulation,is this meant to replace the old "Holidays" column?

– time spent unable to work due to temporary incapacity,so does this cover both the 42 day categories now?

– time spent on maternity leave, parental leave, employment suspension, or other rights granted under special regulations,

– time spent on paid leave,

– time spent on unpaid leave,

– time spent away from work during the daily schedule at the employee's request,

– time spent away from work during the daily schedule where the employee fails to perform contracted duties through their own fault,

– time spent on strike,

– time spent during a lockout.
Does every single one of these bullet points require its own dedicated column?

cosmictinker24 said:But I’m really stuck on point 9—absences from the workplace:
- Does this include time taken for breaks (daily, weekly, or vacation)???? Are we seriously supposed to log a 30-minute lunch break under daily leave? And I don't even get what they mean by weekly leave... up until now, I’ve only ever recorded annual vacation... I could really use some clarification here.

And what happens if the records aren't kept based on exact clock-in and clock-out times, but just by date? I see that's still perfectly legal, but what then? Am I supposed to open a brand new column just to jot down "0.5" every single day? I mean, isn't that just common sense by itself?!?

cosmictinker24 said:Does anyone happen to have a template for a time sheet that actually complies with the new regulations from March 28, 2015?

Paul Carter40 said:They added a few things—stuff like field work hours, time taken for maternity or parental leave, and any gaps in the daily schedule requested by the employee.

Since you all brought it up, I remember a time when someone at the RIF told me that I didn't actually need to keep every single column open in my records if there was zero activity to report for them. Essentially, they said if there wasn't any U.S. sick leave taken during a specific month, I could just leave that column closed entirely. They even suggested I could add a custom column if something unique popped up—like night shift overtime, for instance. Is that still the case? Can I just omit columns where nothing happened, and am I allowed to create new ones for things that aren't explicitly laid out in the regulations but are necessary for my tracking?

I really need some help here.
Back in February, we got approval regarding a business partner in Mexico for services we provided to them. We use Synesis, and when generating the sales tax return, the software populated field I.5 with $100 and then updated the other data on page 2 under section VIII.5 with $100.
The headache starts when we try to upload the return to the IRS portal.
It keeps throwing an error saying negative values aren't allowed. Here is the exact message they sent us:

The form doesn't comply with the required XML structure.

Technical details:
The 'http://irs.gov/schemas/tax/FormSalesTax/v9-0:Data850' element is invalid - The value '-306.77' is invalid according to its datatype 'http://irs.gov/schemas/BaseTypes/v2-1:tNonNegativeDecimal15-2' - The MinInclusive constraint failed.

The IRS system allows you to enter a value in field I.5 like $100, but for section VIII.5, it strictly demands positive numbers only. This means we can only enter $100. We even tried manually filling out the form directly on the IRS website, but no luck. What am I supposed to do?! Why shouldn't fields I.5 and VIII.5 have matching values? If this is a credit/adjustment, shouldn't it be reflected in field VIII.5 with a "-" sign?! 🤔

I’m not recording the deposit itself because I already logged that cash deposit into the IRA account from which it originated. As for the fuel expense, I’ve been running that through the URA ledger since I'm using pre-tax deductions. When I get down to the payment method section, I just select cash so everything flows correctly into the right KPI column.

I make sure to write off my corporate taxes and membership fees as business expenses—they definitely count toward my KPI. However, I don't book the interest I earn from my savings accounts on a quarterly basis as standard income (so they don't hit my KPI right away). Instead, at the end of the year, I put together a comprehensive list of non-business receipts. That’s where I report those interest payments, any sick leave covered by Medicare for sole proprietors, transfers between different personal accounts, foreign currency trades, and things like that.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this whole situation, but honestly, I don't think anyone is looking at the bigger picture here. It feels like we're just spinning our wheels while the actual issues go unaddressed. I have a theory—and bear with me, because I know I tend to wander—but if you look at how these policies are being implemented, there’s a clear pattern of inefficiency that borders on the absurd. It isn't just a minor oversight; it's a systemic failure. I was reading some thoughts earlier by Nicole Lee6, and while I see where they're coming from, I can't say I entirely agree with the conclusion. They seem to be overlooking the sheer scale of the bureaucracy involved. You can't just apply a quick fix to something this deeply ingrained in the American system. It requires a much more surgical approach, though I suspect nobody in Washington has the stomach for it. It’s frustrating, frankly. We keep expecting seamless transitions and perfect execution, yet we ignore the fact that the foundation itself is cracked. We need to stop treating these symptoms and start addressing the underlying cause, or we're just wasting everyone's time. Nicole Lee6 says:
Look, I’m not going to go running to the authorities to file a formal complaint just yet; let's just wait and see how this plays out. We're dealing with a reseller here, but since there isn't any explicit disclaimer or warning attached to the listing, I don't see the point in jumping to conclusions prematurely. I prefer to be deliberate about these things rather than making accusations without all the facts on the table.
Maybe they calculated everything they were supposed to, or maybe they missed a few things—honestly, my receipt only shows the net amount. I’m leaning towards not sending anything at all rather than filing an incorrect report. If it turns out I actually need to account for something else, I'll just go ahead and correct it later.

ruggedmaker2 said:If we're talking about a reseller here, then we're definitely looking at a margin scheme tax situation.
The only real headache left is how they handle the note on the invoice; since the seller is operating out of a different DC, they’re just going to write that disclaimer however their specific local tax laws dictate.

We ended up buying a used heavy-duty truck from a reseller, but they didn't bother following any specific margin scheme for the tax calculation. Instead, they just slapped this vague note on the invoice claiming that sales tax wasn't applied based on some obscure section of their local laws. Honestly, I haven't had the time to sit down and actually dig into the fine print yet to see what we're dealing with. I need to figure out if that clause refers to a standard B2B transaction between two registered taxpayers within the USA, or if it’s just a loophole they're using because they qualify as a small business that doesn't have to report sales tax on their invoices at all.
Basically, we made sure to report everything directly to the IRS. When we went down to the local police station, they wouldn't touch the registration process until we produced a formal confirmation from the tax authorities. We had to prove that this was a used commercial truck—you know, the kind of purchase you’re legally obligated to disclose on both your standard tax filings and your IRS documentation. 🤷
To make matters even more infuriating, things actually took a turn for the worse a few months down the line. I got a call from some lady over at the IRS—the very same one who had initially slapped down that confirmation claiming this was a used commercial vehicle—asking me when on earth I was going to bring in the NPS form. Honestly, I had to practically beg her to take a second look at her own paperwork and see what she’d written in the subject line in the first place. 😂 It looks like we were her very first experience with importing used heavy machinery from the USA, and honestly, she just completely lost her cool over it...

Drew Rogers6 said:Maybe just give the Germans a call and ask? If they're using some special margin taxation scheme, it should be clearly stated on the invoice—same goes if it's a reverse charge situation. Honestly, you could try playing dumb and reporting nothing, but if they file their end, the IRS is going to come knocking on your door to reconcile everything. I dealt with this once where I reported it, but the seller in the USA didn't, and I ended up getting flagged. They cross-reference all this stuff, I think on a quarterly basis. Personally, I'd try filing it for October (assuming they're currently in the IRS database) and if it doesn't go through, hey, you haven't lost anything.

We did the exact same thing when we filed the acquisition for a used commercial truck we picked up back in December 2013. The seller was based out of a small town in Oregon. He was just a small-time operator over there, but he had a valid Tax ID, which we verified through the FIFA system. We gave him our US Tax ID, and he noted on the invoice that sales tax wasn't charged per some specific regulation. Since we are registered taxpayers, we filed the acquisition and ended up with an immediate credit, so nothing actually came out of our pockets. The IRS basically just validated the invoice, confirming we needed to report the acquisition for December 2013, and based on that official stamp, we were able to get the truck registered with the DMV.

Now, the IRS is calling us, demanding a formal written explanation as to why we included this in our filings when the guy in Oregon didn't report it on his end. Honestly, how am I supposed to know why he chose not to report it?!?

ruggedmaker2 said:That’s my take on it too.

Nicole Lee6, don't waste your breath digging through trade magazines; just call a VAT specialist at the IRS.
Since everything is happening within the same fiscal year (the same tax period), I doubt there'll be any headache if you need to void an invoice or fix things later. But seriously, run it by the tax authorities first. At the end of the day, they’re the ones auditing your VAT, ZP, and income tax for the year anyway.
You wouldn't believe the "official opinions" these bureaucrats hold onto—stuff they never bother to publish anywhere, leaving us totally in the dark.

If your tax advisor is half as good as mine, 🙏 she'll probably just email you her formal opinion so everything is black and white.

I’ve been trying to track down my contact in Seattle for days now, but she isn't picking up, and neither is the office in Washington, D.C. 😢

Carol Price4 said:Nicole Lee6—wait, I’m still a bit lost on that part—who actually sent you those bills back after four months?

As far as I can tell, it's crystal clear—it just falls under the tax liability transfer law, Article 17, Section 1...

So, these are invoices from Switzerland and Mexico. It looks like someone at the regional center just left them sitting in a desk drawer for four months, and now they're suddenly being handed back to me. Apparently, these bills never even made it to Mexico or Switzerland in the first place...
along with them, they also returned three invoices from June 2014 that were headed to Canada (European Union). These were all properly reported to ZP because they were invoiced to the wrong subsidiary, even though we billed based on the purchase order we received... honestly, I have no clue what my next move should be.

And what am I supposed to do about that unfortunate missing certification from the authorities? I went ahead and issued the invoice with the transfer anyway. Did I mess this up, or is my reasoning sound—that based on the partner's name, their website, and the actual nature of the business, it's perfectly logical to conclude they are a legal entity (and not just a tax debtor)?

Jeremy Anderson63 said:First thing you gotta do is get proof from them that they’re actually a registered business over there—like a federal tax ID or whatever their local authorities issue.

Just cite Section 17, Paragraph 1 of the tax liability transfer law.

On your sales tax return, you just list it under section I.5., and you don't have to file any extra supplemental forms.

You don't need to go through the whole hassle of registering for sales tax in this case, but you definitely still have to submit your regular monthly sales tax report. Though, honestly, I'm not even sure how the IRS handles the paperwork side of things for international clients... you don't have to register, but you still gotta file the return... hmmm...

Well, it is certainly a good thing this question was brought up. Now I am actually feeling a bit stuck.

Back in July, I issued two invoices for vehicle towing services; one went to Mexico and the other to Switzerland—so in both cases, we are dealing with a non-EU country.
The invoices were issued with the sales tax transferred per Art. 17, Section 1, because we are dealing with branches of a major European insurance company located in Switzerland and Mexico.
I don't have confirmation from their local tax authorities that they are registered tax entities in their respective countries, nor do I have certification from a competent tax body proving the client is engaged in business activities (which is what we were told at the rif seminar back in April 2014). Honestly, I don't even have a tax ID for the Swiss insurance company; the request came through a regional dispatch center, and even if I managed to get them on the phone, I wouldn't have any clue how to explain exactly what documentation I need. So, I just relied on the fact that based on their name and their website, it is clearly an insurance firm—specifically a branch of one. I assumed they were a business user and weren't using the towing service for private reasons (the invoice shows the service was used by Ivo Ivić, but the bill is addressed to the insurance company, which is Ivo Ivić's insurer and the party settling the cost).

Furthermore, we received payment guarantees/instructions via email showing that the insurance company is both the client and the payer. Their details were provided for invoicing, along with a note stating that sales tax should not be applied. We managed to reach someone at the regional center and asked them to have the client provide that famous certification from the tax authorities proving they are a business entity, but the response we got was simply that the purchase order already listed the client's VAT number, so that should be sufficient evidence, and we should send the invoice without tax. That is exactly what we did.

Now, four months later, those two invoices are being sent back to us. They have handwritten notes on them saying, "Switzerland and Mexico are not in the EU; sales tax must be applied." This implies they are rejecting it because it's a third country, rather than questioning whether they are legal entities, since I lack that official tax certification.

So, tell me, who is the crazy one here?! I called the consultants at Ripup, and they say it doesn't matter that it's a third country; the transfer under Art. 17 applies, but I absolutely must have proof that they are a taxable entity in that country. Meanwhile, rif claims I need proof not just that they are a taxpayer, but that they conduct business activities in their own country—essentially, proof that they are a commercial entity and not just a private citizen. For the Swiss side, I don't have that, though the insurance name matches the one in Germany, which I can verify via ViES, and it is indeed in ViES (all branches share the same name, with just the specific country added to the title). As for the Mexican side, I managed to find some info online in Cyrillic to print out showing they are taxpayers, but it doesn't explicitly state they are registered for sales tax in Mexico.

What on earth am I supposed to do now? How should I handle this?

We just realized there's a mistake in our July FBI filing. A specific amount from one of our invoices—the part that qualifies as a tax liability transfer under Section 17(1)—was completely left out. It didn't make it into the FBI form when it absolutely should have.
I’m thinking—though I can't say for certain yet—that we probably need to file an amended FBI form for July, and presumably, that would mean an amended Sales Tax form for July needs to go right along with it, correct?
Now, here is the dilemma regarding how to actually execute this properly within our accounting software:

- Should we leave the original July FBI and Sales Tax forms we filed back on August 10th untouched in the system, and then just generate entirely new versions starting on the next available line item dated October 28th? That would mean having two separate FBI forms and two Sales Tax forms sitting in the database for the month of July.

- Or, is it better to just wipe the original July FBI and Sales Tax forms from the database entirely since they were sent on August 10th, and replace them with the corrected versions to send to the IRS? In that scenario, the final July totals in our database would only reflect the single, corrected set of FBI and Sales Tax forms.

cosmictinker24 said:I guess I have to ask... do you actually book interest payments for taxes and contributions as expenses?

No, they can't. Any interest payments being funneled into the federal treasury aren't recognized as deductible expenses.

We need to figure out how to invoice our business partner in the European Union for the field visit required to deliver funds and pick up a medical report. Basically, the insurance company reached out and asked us to head down to the ER to cover the examination costs on behalf of the client—which they’ll reimburse later—and then grab the medical results to send over to them.
The actual cost of the medical exam will just show up on our invoice as a pass-through expense.

But what about the fee for the "field service" itself? We provided a service to our partner by delivering the cash and retrieving that medical documentation. I’m looking at the standard B2B rules and Article 17; should I be transferring the tax liability to our business partner, or am I supposed to be charging sales tax on this? Is there some specific exception to the general rule that applies here?

Nicole Lee6 said:On my AT&T mobile bill, part of the charges is listed under pass-through items (it says non-taxable services and pass-through items—I recall there was a one-time parking text alert and some other third-party service fee, but they’ve all been categorized as pass-throughs). Should I bundle these together with the interest and late fees in the "not subject to tax" section when I'm inputting everything into Synesis for the audit? Or am I strictly forbidden from including them anywhere at all?

P.S. It just occurred to me—when entering mobile service bills into the URA, should that pass-through amount be entered into both the "not subject to tax" section AND the Section 22 field at the same time?

On my AT&T mobile bill, part of the charges is listed under pass-through items (it says non-taxable services and pass-through items—I recall there was a one-time parking text alert and some other third-party service fee, but they’ve all been categorized as pass-throughs). Should I bundle these together with the interest and late fees in the "not subject to tax" section when I'm inputting everything into Synesis for the audit? Or am I strictly forbidden from including them anywhere at all?

Jeremy Anderson63 said:Yeah, you just report the invoice dated July 31st. That's what our law says, regardless of whatever their rules are.

As for those Canadians and how they handle reporting your authorization—just make sure you file it properly with the UN. What they do on their end is their business. Honestly, I don't think they even have an obligation to file an IRS-style form there.

The discrepancies in filing and that 2-3 month window happen because different states have different rules for submitting UN forms. For example, Germany does it quarterly, so that's just the time it takes to sync the data up.

Now that I've read that, I feel like I might have heard something similar once too—back when everything started shifting here last year—about how they don't use VAT returns, just the ZP...

Fine then. I wasn't entirely clear on how to handle this credit note for Canada, but I'll just create it (I don't really have a choice). They stopped paying me in dollars and switched to Euro, but they aren't sticking to the Euro amounts listed on the invoices; instead, they use some insane exchange rate of their own, which means they consistently underpay me. I see zero point in recording revenue in my KPI that I haven't actually realized. So, I'll just issue the credit note for the difference and send it over, and if they want to toss it in the trash, that's on them....

Can I just wait until December to see how this whole payment situation plays out before I sit down and generate all these credit notes?

Jeremy Anderson63 said:Even though neither the Law nor the Regulations have officially covered this specific move yet, there isn't really any other way to handle it besides what you just described.

On the VAT return, field I.3. will show the delivery value reduced by the amount of that discount.

In the ZP, under position 11., you’ll list that same delivery amount minus the discount. The sum of those two fields will match up, so the audits won't flag anything.

It would probably be a smart move to double-check that the customer actually claimed that credit on their VAT filing for July.

And obviously, the credit memo needs to have all the same details as a standard invoice.

What happens if I report it but they don't? I’m actually in the middle of having to send an approval over to Canada right now, and honestly, I have no clue if they’re even going to bother filing it on their end. 🤷

Regarding the reporting timing—I'm not entirely sure if it's critical that our filing months align perfectly. 🤷 For instance, I have a situation where I receive an invoice from a Canadian firm for brokerage services covering July 1st through July 31st, yet the actual invoice date is August 8th.
My advisors told me that under American tax regulations, I have to report this in my VAT return by the last day of the accounting period in which the services were provided. Since this is a consolidated invoice for July, that would mean the deadline is July 31st. Meanwhile, they’ll likely file it in Canada based on the invoice date, which is August 8th (since for them, the invoice date is what matters for both goods and services). According to my consultants, this discrepancy shouldn't be an issue because there's supposedly a two-month grace period where differences in filing dates are tolerated. 🤷

amberdrifter14 said:Well, if Switzerland isn't part of the USA, you have to treat it like any other export—similar to shipping to Canada or Mexico. There is no reverse charge applicable here...

Actually, the tax liability shifts because we're talking about a completed freight service within a B2B relationship. For non-USA countries, it functions the same way it does for our domestic partners under Section 17(1) regarding the transfer of tax liability.

The only thing that keeps me up at night is how, when dealing with other USA states, everything is so seamless because you can just pull the verification straight from FedEx.

But when you're dealing with foreign countries outside the USA, what on earth are you supposed to provide as proof of their tax status? Is having their tax ID sufficient—I mean, I have that number listed right there on the payment guarantee I received—just to establish that the service recipient is acting as a registered business entity in their home country? Or am I expected to harass them for an official certification from their local tax authority proving they're actually running a business? In my experience, that's a total dead end; they act like you're being unreasonable just for asking. Should I be demanding their articles of incorporation instead? That doesn't work in practice either. How else is a client supposed to prove they are a legitimate commercial entity and not just some private individual?