An employer deducts for taxes but does not pay them to the IRS or social security, is employee liable? Suppose that an employee A has a boss B (who is also the company owner) that deducts payroll taxes and then keeps the money and reinvests it into his company. A has complained to B about this. As a result A has had problems with trying to receive a tax refund. The IRS now thinks that A's account has been hacked and has instructed A to appear in-person and straighten this out in order to receive refund. Is it possible that A will be stuck paying those takes a second time if B never pays the IRS as he should? A has paychecks and stubs for every single payday as proof. A has W-2 forms also. What do tax law and regulations say about such a case?
I've litigated cases like these before. The IRS enforcement reaction is swift and severe. Penalties for the employer are heavy and rarely waived. It would be rare for a business like this to stay operational long enough to issue a W-2. A business like this would probably be shut down by the IRS and have the people responsible for the payroll function, at a minimum, promptly burdened with tax liens, within four to six months. These cases also constitute a significant share of all criminal tax prosecutions. The odds of someone doing this spending several years in federal prison is high. Generally speaking, if the wrongdoing is fully on the part of the employer without the collusion or knowledge of the employee, the IRS will not force the employee to double pay the taxes that should have been withheld by the employer in this situation. Instead, this IRS will try to recover the amounts that were withheld from the employees but not delivered to the IRS. It will seek to recover these amounts from the employer and also from other responsible persons in the organization (and from outsourced professionals) with the authority to pay the IRS who did not do so. There may be circumstances, if push comes to shove, where the IRS could collect from the employees in a case like this one (I've never had occasion to need to research that issue), but that would be the rare exception and not the rule, in practice. On the other hand, if the employer simply does not withhold taxes or prepare W-2s at all, and either 1099s people who should have been classified as employees (or files no information tax returns at all), the IRS will generally insist that the employee pay income taxes on the full amount owed and that they pay the employee part of payroll taxes. It will also pursue the employer for the employer's share of payroll taxes. The employer will also be jointly and severally liable for any taxes that should have been reported and subjected to withholding that are not paid by the employee (perhaps because the employee spent all the money). Sometimes cases like this are also criminally prosecuted, but it is less common to do so.
Fundamentally, to what extent is a Limited Partner subject to a potentially ruinous financial situation resulting from financial wrong-doing committed by the Managing Partner? Civil tax liability Under U.S. tax law, a limited partner in a limited partnership that is taxed under Subchapter K of the Internal Revenue Code (i.e. as a partner) is responsible for that limited partner's share of all taxable income of the partnership, for all interest owed on the unpaid taxes, and generally speaking (subject to very narrow exceptions), to penalties assessed on the unpaid tax. Moreover, frequently, the limited partner has no right to be involved in the tax litigation by the tax matters partner of the partnership on the issues that matter. The limited partner's tax liabilities to the federal government and any other taxing authorities with a pass through income tax system are not limited to the limited partner's investment in the limited partnership. Criminal liability exposure The limited partner will generally not have any criminal liability for tax crimes committed by a general partner or other partnership official engaged in tax work on behalf of the limited partnership without more affirmative involvement in and endorsement of the misconduct, although the partnership itself might See U.S. v. Arthur Anderson, LLP (which was reversed on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court because proof of intent was inadequate, but demonstrated the principle.) A limited partner would bear the limited partner's pro rata share of a criminal fine but that would be limited to the limited partner's investment in the limited liability partnership. Mitigating the harm with a lawsuit The limited partner will usually have a right to bring a civil action (i.e. a lawsuit) against a general partner whose management of the taxes of the partnership cause the limited partner to incur tax penalties, on a breach of fiduciary duty theory, but the limited partner will generally not be able to recover back taxes owed, or interest on back taxes owed, in a lawsuit of this kind. The limited partner might also be able to bring a lawsuit on other theories that might involve an award of punitive damages against the general partner or other person handling the taxes of the partnership who was involved. The legal theories are complex and many would involve a "derivative action" rather than a direct suit against the general partner or manager. Other questions The "what to do about this situation" part of this question is beyond the scope of Law.SE as it calls for individualized legal advice. A good response to this situation would be challenging to formulate for even a specialist business law and litigation practitioner with far more factual detail available. Litigating of issues like this routinely costs each side hundreds of thousands of dollars and can take multiple years.
Not as such. As the contract author, you must clearly and specifically identify risks that you want to other party to accept. Your whims i.e. &quot;our own discretion&quot; are not a clearly identified risk. The trivial solution is to state that there are two payments, €150 up front and €850 afterwards. Then, you claim the right to waive (at your sole discretion) part or whole of the second payment. It should be noted that the tax implications of such a contract could be non-obvious. You probably have to claim the whole €1000 as income when the contract is signed, and any waived payment as a discretionary expense. You're unlikely to get a VAT refund on that €850, I suspect. So given that you'd have paid €187 to the Irish government, refunding €850 would be hard.
Usually, your landlord is going to deduct this from your security deposit rather than invoice you for it. As a practical matter, your options to dispute the charges are generally going to be excessively expensive relative to a $40 charge to make it worth fighting, particularly if you don't have contemporaneous evidence that is indisputable like photos that you can authenticate at a hearing, to prove that the landlord is wrong. Your testimony would be admissible to contradict the landlord's claim, and the judge would have to decide who to believe, but generally, it only makes any sense at all to litigate over small dollar amounts if you have unmistakably clear evidence that shows you should win.
Not very nice of the employer, actually quite cowardly. Being not nice and cowardly is not against the law. Being in the EU, and having been employed for ten years, the company will have duties to find a different position in the company at the same pay, and only when that fails, the employee can be laid off and will have a reasonable amount of notice, plus a reasonable amount of redundancy pay due to him. Unfortunately, he can expect only the legal minimum if the company behaved like this already. Good companies would provide a generous redundancy pay, plus pay for you to have any agreements checked by an employment lawyer of your choice - which means the employee can be sure they are not ripped off, and the employer is sure they cannot be sued for any reason. Obviously if they want him to quit, then the one single thing your relative mustn't do is to quit. Let them pay him. Plenty of time to look for a new job.
are employers legally allowed to punish (e.g. fire, reprimand, etc.) an employee who shares wage/salary information with their colleagues? No. Section 8 of the BC Labour Relations Code preserves for the employee &quot;the freedom to communicate to an employee a statement of fact [...] with respect to the employer's business&quot;. More conclusively, section 64 entitles a person to disclose --except for purposes of picketing-- &quot;information [...] relating to terms or conditions of employment or work done or to be done by that person&quot;. Wage/salary information clearly is a condition of employment. the only answer to that question relies on a law from a different province (Ontario) and so is not relevant in BC. That answer is relevant to Canada (also the question was about Canada). That answer cites a statute from Ontario because that is the jurisdiction that the asker specified. It would be tiresome as well as futile to provide the statutory equivalent of every province on a matter that the provinces are very unlikely to legislate materially differently.
The criteria used by the IRS suggest that for federal tax purposes, the cashier would be properly classified as a contractor. Behavioral Control: A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the work performed by the worker, even if that right is not exercised. There is probably some training involved here, but it seems negligible. Has the company actually retained the right to direct and control the cashier? Is he obligated to use their register, as they tell him to use it? Is his work evaluated for compliance with those instructions? I'd guess that in most cases, the company doesn't actually care about any of this. As long as the company got all the money it was owed, would it really care if the cashier just stuck the money in his pockets until the end of the day? I'd also argue that it isn't really the employer controlling the when and where of the contractor's work, but rather the circumstances. Classifying him as an employee because he has to be at the event doesn't really make any more sense than saying your plumber is an employee because he has to come to your house to do the job. Financial Control: Does the business have a right to direct or control the financial and business aspects of the worker's job? The investment in the cash register seems relatively nominal. The company probably does not reimburse the cashier for expenses incurred in getting the job done. The cashier is presumably free to offer his services to others. The cashier is presumably being paid a one-time, flat fee. As you noted, though, the fact that there isn't much profit-loss opportunity is one factor pointing in the other direction. Relationship: The type of relationship depends upon how the worker and business perceive their interaction with one another. The fact that this is a single, hours-long job is probably the strongest evidence that the cashier is a contractor. Further, the cashier's job is not a key part of the business, as it is only a minor portion of an event that the company has never performed before and has no apparent intention of repeating. I assume that the company is not providing health benefits, sick time, etc., and that any contract with the cashier includes no language suggestive of an employer-employee relationship. Conclusion: The employee-contractor distinction is pretty fact-intensive, but based on what you've provided, there seems to be a much stronger argument that the cashier would be a contractor.
It depends to a large degree on local employment laws. Depending on how the counteroffer was worded, it might have constituted anything from a binding legal contract for employment for some reasonable minimum term, or a totally non-binding suggestion that was worth less than the air breathed while pronouncing it. Some things to consider would include: What are local employment laws like? Do they require that termination be for cause? If so, what are causes for termination? Does termination require any kind of remediation beforehand? Note that in an at-will, right-to-work state in the US, odds are that the employee can be fired for any time and for any reason, supposing the employer hasn't accidentally entered into a contract by extending the counteroffer. What did the counteroffer say? Did it stipulate that the offer was not for a definite term and that the company reserved the right to terminate the employee for any reason, or no reason at all? Odds are any sufficiently serious business in an at- will, right-to-work state would use standard legal language in any offer or counteroffer to ensure that they are on the right side of this, so odds are the counteroffer was accepted with no obligations at all on the company. Does the termination affect eligibility for unemployment benefits? I would say most likely not, as the termination would probably be recorded as being for no reason legally speaking (if they admitted to terminating the employee for seeking other employment, interested government officials could take a dim view of the company's actions). You'd probably have at least some unemployment compensation coming your way. Some professional - not legal - advice. Never accept a counteroffer. Only get another offer in the first place if you are committed to leaving your current employer no matter what. If your company really insists, you should insist on a minimum definite term of employment written into a legal contract which is signed by an executive and notarized. No company will agree to this (unless the term is shorter than you'd want as a full-time W-2 anyway) but if they do, hey, you have some security (if the company agrees to this, have your own lawyer - whom you pay with your own money - review the document). Even then, I would be very, very careful about staying at a company after getting a counteroffer. Don't do it. Ever. Never accept a counteroffer. One comment asks why I recommend never accepting a counteroffer. There are at least two reasons: The reason you are looking for a new job should be that there is something about your current job that isn't completely satisfactory and that you haven't been able to fix. Either you have grown out of the position, don't like the work, feel you're underpaid, don't get along with somebody, etc. If you were unable or unwilling to fix any of these issues without having another job on the table, having another job on the table shouldn't be what makes you willing and able to fix them. Why work somewhere that you'd constantly need to go job hunting to address workplace issues? Unless the company makes firm agreements about how long they're going to keep you around, you have no guarantee that they'll keep you. Presumably, you didn't have one before, and you don't have one at the new job, but the fact that you are currently employed might support the assumption that your employment would be continued at your current employer and the offer might support the assumption the new employer plans to employ you indefinitely. When you put in your notice, it makes the company more aware of the fact that you could leave at any time; while a perfectly rational actor would realize that this doesn't change the situation at all, companies are run by people and people often act irrationally. Perhaps your manager is vindictive, perhaps your manager is scared that you will still leave after accepting the counteroffer. Maybe your manager knows there are layoffs coming but needs you for the busy season. Hiring replacements can be time-consuming and expensive - and employees who are getting offers of employment elsewhere and putting in notice might be seen as risks. I'm not saying that accepting a counteroffer has always turned out badly. Falling coconuts kill 150 people every year. Still, I am not going to add a coconut rider to my insurance policy and I am not going to accept a counteroffer.