Have a Tax Question? Ask a Tax Expert
Hi, do you mean the payroll taxes to cover SDI in California?
While I'm waiting, you may want to take a look at this: http://www.edd.ca.gov/payroll_taxes/How_to_Correct_Prior_Reports_or_Deposits.htm
You may also want to take a look at this: http://www.edd.ca.gov/payroll_taxes/FAQ_-_Payroll_Taxes_General_Information.htm#Dononprofitorganizations
I still don't see you coming into the chat session, so I'll move us to the "Q&A" mode. … Maybe that will help … (We can still continue a dialogue there, just not in real-time chat, as we can here)
Since you're still not coming into the chat, I'll answer in a general fashion:
California follows the Federal practice of holding the "responsible party" responsible for paying any taxes due, if that person (or persons) were responsible for collecting and paying over the insurance premium (or other payroll taxes) to the state.
Again, I'm making huge assumptions about what you're asking here, but if you'll come back and provide some detail we can go from there
If this HAS helped, I would appreciate a feedback rating of 3 (OK) or better … That's the only way they will pay us here.
HOWEVER, if you need more on this, PLEASE COME BACK here, so you won't be charged for another question.
But again, please let me know if you have any questions at all ...
Ahhh there you are!
You're talking about SDI here?
Then yes, EVENTUALLY, IF you are responsible for paying them, then they will go through a process to identify who the responsible parties are (probably get them from the original(and amended) articles filed with Sec of State ... and (please done't shoot the messenger here) begin to send demand letters
What you are SUPPOSED to do when you dissolve is file a last information statement with Sec of State and declare that all tax are paid, if any are due
In other words, the chairman of the board and the CEO will have to pay them?
I'm afraid so ... unless there wer employess that hd the responsibilities and you can make the case that they were derelict in their dutite and the CEO/ oard was unanware
sorry for the typos ... "duties"
I hope you'll ate my answer on the accuracy and thoroughness, rather than any good news/bad new content (Maybe having all the facts will help you to "see around some corners")
But yes, the "responsible party" method is pervasive... all taxing authorities use this as a way to collect payroll taxes of all kinds
What they WILL NOT do is go after the employees themselves(who the money was being collected from)
I d not feel badly about your answer, I have a brother who is a cpa who told me that same thing, I was just checking it
I feel badly that I may have to pay it, however
NOW, if you can show that the money was never deducted from paychecks, you will have a much better case for some lenience
I understand ... one thing is for sure... If you can get to them before they get to you? The result is always better... they may work out a payment schedule, for example
They ALWAYS reward proactivity
I am talking about the money the employer pays to the state for some kindof insurance, without which you cannot open your doors and do business
yes, that's SDI (State Disability Insurance)
Again, most employers DEDUCT this from the employees checks ... IF the money was never deducted (hence they cannot try to make a case that the money was deducted and used irresponsibly) you have a MUCH better case
I will definitely get to them before they go after me. I am for proactivity-- However, it was not I who did this, a woman embezzled money from the business, and left us in such a hole, we could hardly pay our insurances, but we did work out a schedule to pay them, we got caught in an audit last year in which they said we only owed 500. which we paid, but they just sent us another letter saying that they found another 10,000. that we owe.
WOW, .. 1st, sometime the right arm doesn't know that the left are is done go to speak (Make sure that you respond to this LATEST with the documentation from what happened last year) .... then (2) May be stating the obvious here, but make sure you (maybe for the second time) document that this was the product of an embezzlement ... You may even want to press criminal charges for "THEFT by CONVERSION," to show that you are taking action on this and that you are NOT the responsible party
"arm is doing"
What this SHOULD turn on is WHO is responsible ... If this person embezzled the funds, you should not be help responsible BUT (back to being proactive) you want to document that in any way you can
WE have a case with the Irwindale Police, but they say they have so many cases that they hardly have time to work on them all and have encouraged us to do a civil suit, but we dont have $ for a lawyer, so I dont know what to do. We also have evidence that the auditor did eveything the bad girl told him to, so we would like to sue that company as well, but again, no money
Again, I would take a firm position (use these words) that "We have filed charges with Irwindale Police, and the RESPONSIBLE PARTY (let them know that you know what this means) is the person who embezzled from the organization ... Further that "If we can recover from this individual, we will promptly remit ..."
Thank you very much, is there any way I can do this in the court system myself? I have heard that the courts were originally set up so that anyone could go in there and do a thing, is that the case?
Yes, although Pro Se cases do not have a great track record. ... let me get the process for you
Here's a great references on the traps one can get into by representing one's self in the CA court system:
Although tis is ORange c**ty, the process is the same: http://www.occourts.org/self-help/criminal/obtaininganattorney.html
in the state of California, can a person go pro se for a non profit corporation that is out of $?
Remember that if this hasn't reached the actual court ordered judgment stage, then the things I've mentioned above should ce sent to the CA revenue Dept (Franchise Tax board) ... It MAY be that if you can document that you are pursuing this person that has embezzled, this may never reach the point of a court ordered judgment
I am sorry I was referring in my mind to the prosecution in civil court of the embezzler?
To answer your queston? YES ..I would submit this as the reason that you are representing yourself... ALTHOUGH, again you can get court appointed counsel once you shpw that the means ($) aren't there to pay for representation