Re: relocation handcuffs

Post #110,688 by dshellman 7/21/03 11:46:35 AM Reply	Re: relocation handcuffs My biggest surprise with this is the fact that they are paying taxes (for you) on this. Technically, at least as far as I know, it's an expense, which means that they pay for it with no tax consequences to you. I was relocated some years ago, and they tried to pay me it as a bonus (that is, they took out taxes, etc.). I called them up and explained that it was an expense (since in my case they were reimbursing me for the cost). In that case, I'd be surprised if they could consider it relocation costs, since they're taxing it. Legally, you may be able to get it to be considered a bonux (such as a sign-on bonus). In which case, they can't require you to pay any of it back (as it becomes part of your salary). You definitely want to have an lawyer look at it. Dan
Post #110,762 by lincoln 7/21/03 7:17:05 PM Reply	No they're not My biggest surprise with this is the fact that they are paying taxes (for you) on this. No they're not. Talked to the HR woman this morning. No bending on their part at all. No matter what happens, for whatever reason, if I end up employed elsewhere (or return home because of an emergency and not work) I owe them everything within 2 years of my start date. They will not "gross up" anything. On top of which, when I do relocate my family and pay taxes on the value of the package, what's to stop Uncle Sam from refusing to repay me the taxes on money that I return to the company? Double Whammy! lincoln "Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig" [link\|http://users3.ev1.net/~bconnors/resume.htm\|VB/SQL resume] [link\|http://users3.ev1.net/~bconnors/tandem_resume.htm\|Tandem resume] [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #110,772 by Ashton 7/21/03 8:01:07 PM Reply	IANAF-CPA but.. I'd bet a few bucks: Simply, you'd file an amended tax return, with explanation. This is perhaps their most-FAQ. PITA? yes. Logical remedy? Yes. Should be no quibbles: after all, your claim would be easily verifiable by IRS. Not to invent things to worry about. HTH
Post #110,777 by a6l6e6x 7/21/03 8:29:55 PM 7/21/03 11:10:44 PM Reply	Uncle Sam will be no problem. [link\|http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/page/0,,id=11875,00.html\|IRS Publication 521, Moving Expenses]. Alex A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. -- George Bernard Shaw Edited by a6l6e6x July 21, 2003, 11:10:44 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #110,797 by lincoln 7/21/03 11:05:34 PM Reply	Muchas Gracias! lincoln "Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig" [link\|http://users3.ev1.net/~bconnors/resume.htm\|VB/SQL resume] [link\|http://users3.ev1.net/~bconnors/tandem_resume.htm\|Tandem resume] [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #111,256 by dshellman 7/24/03 10:56:47 AM Reply	Re: No they're not By making the payment to you part of your W2, they pay payroll taxes. Even though they may not "gross up", they're being pretty stupid by paying it to you as part of your salary (as a bonus, not base pay). If they were to "expense" it, then they wouldn't have to pay taxes as all (on their side or yours). Hence, my surprise is that, 1) it costs them more since they have to pay payroll taxes (which they may take into account, but they don't have to do it that way; 2) they're taking more of the money away from you by not expensing it. So, they're hurting everyone involved by being stupid. Now, that's separate from the whole two-year thing, as it appears that that sort of thing is becoming more common. Personally, it's pretty rude (especially because they force you to have to do the whole ammended taxes thing), but it's their business, and they believe they're helping it out that way (which they're probably not, but that's a separate argument). Best of luck with it. Dan

Welcome to IWETHEY!