US contributors look at your 1099's closely from Deposit Photos

[Mantis]

I just received my 1099 from DP and the royalties were overstated by almost double. This is very very suspicious. Their accounting system shows I earned royalties of $1420 but I actually earned only $815, delta of $605. So they are either ripping us off by not reporting all of our commissions on the site but have accurate accounting on the back end in finance or finance is all effed up. I have contacted them and will post their response but keep an eye on your 1099's if you are in the USA.

Now I have to go back to my accountant and make an adjustment to claim unpaid royalties.

[pixel8]

So you looked at your history correct? I just looked at mine and at first I added up wrong with my calculator so I typed into an excel spread sheet and added it that way and it was all correct. However that's not to say that they didn't mess up on yours, I'm just saying double check your numbers.

[Mantis]

So you looked at your history correct? I just looked at mine and at first I added up wrong with my calculator so I typed into an excel spread sheet and added it that way and it was all correct. However that's not to say that they didn't mess up on yours, I'm just saying double check your numbers.

Yes I keep a monthly spreadsheet for each site.  All of my numbers are directly from their summary.

[pixel8]

Then it sounds like they better pay up or send you a revised 1099.

This all raises some important questions as to weather the stock agencies are accurately reporting sales and paying contributors there share or not. I have suspected one agency in particular, unfortunately we don't have a third party watch dog so in reality theses agencies could very well be under reporting sales to contributors!

[EmberMike]

Mine is right on the money (pun intended), and matches up with the transactions I see in PayPal and Skrill. Exact to the dollar.

[Mantis]

Mine is right on the money (pun intended), and matches up with the transactions I see in PayPal and Skrill. Exact to the dollar.

Well hopefully it's a "honest" mistake and it'll get corrected.

[Sean Locke Photography]

Mine was correct.

[sgoodwin4813]

Mine also - it just arrived today.

[Noedelhap]

Then it sounds like they better pay up or send you a revised 1099.

This all raises some important questions as to weather the stock agencies are accurately reporting sales and paying contributors there share or not. I have suspected one agency in particular, unfortunately we don't have a third party watch dog so in reality theses agencies could very well be under reporting sales to contributors!

Not saying it could never happen, but I doubt any high-profile agency would take the very real risk of scamming contributors that obviously.

[Mantis]

Then it sounds like they better pay up or send you a revised 1099.

This all raises some important questions as to weather the stock agencies are accurately reporting sales and paying contributors there share or not. I have suspected one agency in particular, unfortunately we don't have a third party watch dog so in reality theses agencies could very well be under reporting sales to contributors!

Not saying it could never happen, but I doubt any high-profile agency would take the very real risk of scamming contributors that obviously.

They replied and said that the 1099 is based on what you withdrawl, not what you earn.  I am waiting on my second response in which I asked them, "if i do not withdrawl any money for three years i wont get any 1099s? I only take money out roughly once a year, not each month. Very odd no load way to do financials. I wonder if thats even legal?

[sgoodwin4813]

I'm not a lawyer or tax expert, but I think the way they are doing it is correct - they provide a 1099 for money paid out to you during a year, not what was accumulated in your account since you can't spend it until they have sent it to you.  If you don't request a payout for 3 years then they should not provide a 1099.  It is different for business owners - they are required to pay taxes on any money earned regardless of whether it is paid out, I assume since they have access to it if they want.  It is interesting that FT does it by the amount earned regardless of payouts, which is wrong according to my (limited) understanding of these things.

I'll be interested to hear what DP tells you.

[Mantis]

I'm not a lawyer or tax expert, but I think the way they are doing it is correct - they provide a 1099 for money paid out to you during a year, not what was accumulated in your account since you can't spend it until they have sent it to you.  If you don't request a payout for 3 years then they should not provide a 1099.  It is different for business owners - they are required to pay taxes on any money earned regardless of whether it is paid out, I assume since they have access to it if they want.  It is interesting that FT does it by the amount earned regardless of payouts, which is wrong according to my (limited) understanding of these things.

I'll be interested to hear what DP tells you.

I am also no legal eagle. It will be curious as to their response.  You could be exactly right, so I guess it is "HOW" they classify the 1099. DT in the past classified the income as "other" and not "royalties" so my CPA clumfped it in with royalties and I got audited.  Our tax system is so mucked up. Please substitute the "M" for any letter of your choosing:)

Update....DP confirmed that they only 1099 you on what you withdraw. They also confirmed that if I choose to not pull money out for 3 years i would get zero royalties reported on my 1099 for those years.