What does &quot;by conditioning our tax return preparation services&quot; mean? Referencing Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-3 (January 14, 2013) 5(1)(a) specifically, there's some pretty confusing language here that I can't figure out what it means. If we obtain your signature on this form by conditioning our tax return preparation services on your consent, your consent will not be valid. I encountered this while doing my free H&amp;R tax return, and didn't want to agree to it without understanding what it's asking. From the context I assume it means that they're asking for consent to disclose information about my tax return, but that's really not clear.
Reworded: If the only reason you provide consent is because otherwise we won't prepare your taxes then you really haven't provided consent at all.
england-and-wales The government grants limited rights of return (thanks Jen), for which you are entitled to a cash or cash-like refund (e.g. reversal of a credit card charge as described below). The vendor has the option to go above and beyond that statutory minimum as a courtesy to the customer. In that non-compulsory zone, they have the liberty to offer store scrip rather than a cash refund. Of course, any business can try to cheat you, and then you have to stick up for your rights by insisting or reporting to relevant authorities. united-states If you buy with a credit card, the rules and contractual obligations of the credit card companies oblige the merchant to accept returns by doing a refund to the card. It's important to understand how this happens: the merchant isn't just picking an arbitrary amount of money and doing a new &quot;sale in reverse&quot;... they are identifying a specific past transaction that already happened, and modifying or reversing it. That is a system safeguard so they don't credit the wrong person or be tricked into a reversal on a transaction that never happened. That's why they want your receipt. On a cash transaction, it is sellers prerogative whether to issue cash or store credit. Issuing store scrip is a reasonable option to deter theft and fraud. For instance someone who wanted an item could get it for free, by buying the item, taking it home, returning the next day without the item, grab another identical item off the shelf and sneak over to the CS line and &quot;return&quot; it with yesterday's receipt. With cash sales, that would be completely untrackable, and the thief is gone. With credit card, they have your identity; with scrip they can &quot;flag&quot; the scrip in their system to either prevent its use and/or have a security officer detain you if you try to use it. For instance American home stores will cheerfully take re-saleable condition items back even without a receipt, but will issue a store voucher for the value rather than cash. That policy would be a disaster if they refunded cash. As it is, I find it rather convenient! So if you want the convenience of cash refunds, you can just use credit cards - gaining the feature at the expense of anonymity.
If you want to protect yourself or any property interests you may have in this circumstance you have to talk to a lawyer. You cannot get (or trust) legal advice from the internet. I will, however, make the following personal observations: I only provide a W-9 to people who are paying me money, and who request it as a condition of paying me. I don't know of a legal requirement to supply it after the fact. However, not providing it to someone who did pay you more than $600 in a tax year could certainly make it difficult for them to comply with their tax filing obligations. I do not sign any agreements, assignments, or contracts, without what I consider to be fair consideration. E.g., if on leaving a job (as has happened) I am asked by a former employer to sign something that I am not already obligated to sign due to some prior contract, then I negotiate what is commonly called a "severance package." They pay me and/or extend benefits, and I sign something that limits their liability.
Any processing of personal data needs a legal basis, for example necessity for some contract or legitimate interest. If no other legal basis allows the processing, you need to acquire consent. Consent must be freely given. If something is gated behind consent without that consent being really necessary, this might coerce users and they would not be able to consent freely. The GDPR does not have a hard ban on this, but it explicitly calls out that this case must be considered when determining whether consent is valid. So what your company is trying to do is in a dark grey area. Not necessarily wrong, but likely so. Consent could be made free if users have an actual choice. For example, some online newspaper sites had success with a “pay or consent” wall. (Success in the sense that some data protection authorities allowed this). In your case, this could mean that users either consent to extra data collection, or that they buy some reasonably priced premium mode. But none of this is for you to decide. You can voice your doubts that the software would be compliant. You could also ask if the Data Protection Impact Assessment document for this proposed processing is available (creating such an assessment is likely mandatory in this case). But in the end, it is the company's obligation to be compliant, and this responsibility is largely shouldered by the company's data protection officer (to whom you can turn with further questions).
Is it legal to send a document with your signature claiming to be somebody else? Is it legal to allow somebody to sign a document "for you" (using your name)? I'll answer these two questions together. It depends on what laws apply to the specific document. For example: For a contract for the sale of land, the Statute of Frauds requires a signature. However, the Statute provides that the signature may be made by a person authorised by you. In Australia, a Commonwealth income tax return must be signed by the taxpayer. The taxpayer must sign it personally. If you get your assistant to sign it then you haven't filled it in properly and you are liable to be fined for failure to lodge a valid tax return. There are rules in the legislation for corporations, e.g. the public officer signs it. Sometimes the law allows a tax agent/accountant to sign a form. The theme is that the law provides specific rules. In Australia, banknotes must bear the signatures of two senior officials such as the Secretary of the Treasury and the Governor of the Reserve Bank. However, the law imposing this requirement allows a great deal of flexibility about how these signatures are applied, freeing these officials from the tedium of signing millions of banknotes: Reserve Bank Act 1959, s 37. In the case of a letter, there are no specific laws about who can sign it and how. You could very well get an employee to sign it for you. The other issue to be aware of is deception. If I write you a letter signed "Kim Kardashian", but she has no idea I've done this and has not given me permission, but I lead you to believe that Kim Kardashian just wrote you a letter saying you're great, and then you go and embarrass yourself posting that letter on Facebook, then potentially I am in a bit of trouble. (A more serious example would be where I impersonate your bank and purport to waive the repayments on your mortgage, resulting in you defaulting.) In such a case, the relevant laws are the various laws to do with deception, not laws specifically about who can sign a document. Is it legal for a single individual to use multiple signatures when signing legal documents (ie, is there a requirement your signature be identifiable or consistent)? This is fine. A real signature is not like a cryptographic signature. Its function is not to, by itself, prove the authenticity of a document. The act of signing something is significant because it shows commitment, etc, and for very important documents (e.g. deeds) people (or the law) will ask for the signature to be witnessed. The verification in that case comes from the witness being able to testify as to who they saw sign the document, not the appearance of the signature itself. Keep in mind that the law related to signatures evolved at a time when not everybody could write their name and continues to accomodate people who cannot today. There is no reason or principle requiring an individual to use a consistent signature. There is a practical exception in relation to banks. Banks keep a specimen signature on file for each customer and use this to decide whether to accept withdrawal slips, cheques etc. It is not an ideal system (it is not hard to forge a signature well enough to get past a teller) but in conjunction with the banks' other fraud prevention methods it is the best they can do. However, this is a matter of their own risk management not a legal requirement. If you were transacting in person at the branch and the teller knew you and the bank manager was happy, legally you could sign withdrawal slips with an "X" or a different signature every time.
Businesses are not required to do what the card says, they are required to do what the card-holder says, to the extend that what the card holder says relates to giving or denying consent to be vaccinated. Since they don't vaccinate people who are unconscious, consent will always be directly obtained from the patient and the card has absolutely no effect. Also, control subjects are selected at random and the subject does not know what group they are in. Possession of such a card therefore has zero scientific effect.
You clearly cannot provide data that you haven't stored – and not storing data is a good thing under the Art 5(1)(c) Data Minimization Principle. Despite the Art 20 data portability right being conditional on that the data subject has provided data and not on that data has been stored, I think responding to such a request with “sorry, as per our privacy policy we do not store this data” would be perfectly fine. It is also curious that you are using consent as the legal basis for the purpose of selecting the website language. How do you obtain consent from visitors? How can you prove that you got consent? In many ways, consent is the legal basis of last resort, and I'd think that legitimate interest would be a much more straightforward approach in your case.
My understanding is that the "flow-through" treatment is specifically a tax law concept. The LLC has its own income, which it can use to pay expenses or acquire assets or for whatever other purpose, and such assets become the property of the LLC. It's just that when it comes time to pay taxes, the LLC's net income is taxed as income to the owner. But that does not mean that the LLC's income is treated the same as the owner's income in all other legal contexts.