MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Withholding Tax  (Read 6219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 20, 2015, 06:21 »
0
Anyone else make this mistake?  Is this dead money?


https://secure.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366635&page=1


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2015, 06:37 »
0
What did contributorhelp say?

« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2015, 06:41 »
+1
Typical you filled in the tax interview they screwed up now you have to jump thru the hoop with the IRS to get your money back?  What a crock!

« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2015, 09:41 »
0
Well, I made the mistake of not redoing the tax interview to make sure they had the taxpayer ID for my LLC, and they took the money out one month. I'm not going to bother worrying about it. I'll just collect it when I do my taxes next year.

If you're overseas, I think the money will probably be gone. You will not be able to get through to the IRS. I would just call it a loss unless it's a lot of money.

« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2015, 17:31 »
0
I haven't contacted contributor help yet as previous experience is that they respond with some prepared script that doesn't actually deal with the question posed.  If tax is overpaid at work, my employer would refund in the next payment as long as it's within a current tax year so I would have reasonably expected the same from IS.  I don't believe either that all the sales were US sourced.  I was just curious if anyone else is in the same boat as it would avoid the blood pressure increase I'd suffer dealing with the service desk idiots at IS.

« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2015, 04:10 »
0
Luckily I sell so little with them that I don't know if they are withholding yet.  That would be the final straw for me, I pay tax in the UK and don't want to pay in the US, so my portfolio would go down to 1 image if they screw this up.

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2015, 04:11 »
0
Luckily I sell so little with them that I don't know if they are withholding yet.  That would be the final straw for me, I pay tax in the UK and don't want to pay in the US, so my portfolio would go down to 1 image if they screw this up.
I pay tax in the UK, and 0 on iStock. (At least, so far.)
You can re-do the tax interview if you think you got it wrong first time (OP mentioned a 'mistake')
« Last Edit: May 21, 2015, 04:29 by ShadySue »

« Reply #7 on: May 21, 2015, 04:54 »
0
Do people pay tax in the US on all their income?  We don't pay income tax in the UK until we earn 10,000.  Why isn't their an earnings threshold for withholding tax?

« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2015, 04:56 »
0
Luckily I sell so little with them that I don't know if they are withholding yet.  That would be the final straw for me, I pay tax in the UK and don't want to pay in the US, so my portfolio would go down to 1 image if they screw this up.
I pay tax in the UK, and 0 on iStock. (At least, so far.)
You can re-do the tax interview if you think you got it wrong first time (OP mentioned a 'mistake')
Correct - I never paid tax until now, didn't read the small print when they changed from Canada to US and altered the payment request method.  Shouldn't have to pay from here but disappointed in the way it was managed (communication far better on every other site).

« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2015, 08:35 »
+1
Do people pay tax in the US on all their income?  We don't pay income tax in the UK until we earn 10,000.  Why isn't their an earnings threshold for withholding tax?

It's kinda complicated. You don't have to file a return unless you earn a certain amount based on your filing status (single, married, head of household), but people who get pay checks pay income tax out of their checks regardless. If they're income is low and they paid some tax out of their checks, they're likely to get all of the income back when they do their return. You can even get back more than what you paid if you qualify for certain credits. And this does not account for Social Security and Medicare tax, which is a separate issue. So even if you make a little, you should file a return anyway.

If you register with some of these stock sites as a sole proprietor and give them your personal social security number, they will withhold tax just like you were getting a standard check. The better option is to do an LLC, get a federal employer tax ID and apply that way. If you do that, you won't pay income taxes up front, and it will help with other taxes as well.

shudderstok

« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2015, 09:36 »
+3
Luckily I sell so little with them that I don't know if they are withholding yet.  That would be the final straw for me, I pay tax in the UK and don't want to pay in the US, so my portfolio would go down to 1 image if they screw this up.
I pay tax in the UK, and 0 on iStock. (At least, so far.)
You can re-do the tax interview if you think you got it wrong first time (OP mentioned a 'mistake')
Correct - I never paid tax until now, didn't read the small print when they changed from Canada to US and altered the payment request method.  Shouldn't have to pay from here but disappointed in the way it was managed (communication far better on every other site).

these are IRS laws that apply to all US based stock companies not just IS. the transition was pretty well documented from the beginning, if you did not read the small print of which was pretty clear, that is probably why communication is far better on every other site.

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2015, 13:19 »
+4
Luckily I sell so little with them that I don't know if they are withholding yet.  That would be the final straw for me, I pay tax in the UK and don't want to pay in the US, so my portfolio would go down to 1 image if they screw this up.
I pay tax in the UK, and 0 on iStock. (At least, so far.)
You can re-do the tax interview if you think you got it wrong first time (OP mentioned a 'mistake')
Correct - I never paid tax until now, didn't read the small print when they changed from Canada to US and altered the payment request method.  Shouldn't have to pay from here but disappointed in the way it was managed (communication far better on every other site).
I'm not sure how much better the communication could have been.
I got at least two emails (I don't get all their emails, so there might have been more), one well in advance, there were a few threads about it on their forum, from weeks before it started until weeks after, and I'm pretty sure there was some sort of diversion on the site 'encouraging' me to do the interview when the time window opened.

« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2015, 12:27 »
0
So did eventually get a reply of the "tough luck" variety - no surprises there!!


It seems though that they deduct 28% from non-US sourced sales which is a new one on me - thought only US sales were subject to US taxes? 

« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2015, 13:21 »
0
It seems though that they deduct 28% from non-US sourced sales which is a new one on me - thought only US sales were subject to US taxes?

People living in non treaty jurisdictions who complete the tax interview properly are not subject to withholding tax on non US sales. People who do not complete the tax interview properly are taxed on both US and non US sales. This was explained at various points ahead of the change.

Remember that part of the purpose of the tax interview (from the US govt perspective) is to identify US citizens living abroad. US citizens are subject to US tax wherever they live. Correctly completing the interview is therefore also about identifying yourself as not being a US citizen.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2015, 14:25 by bunhill »

« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2015, 17:59 »
0
OK that's as good of an explanation as I'll get, thanks.


It still seems weird that they can't make retrospective adjustments (not as if they send individual payments to revenue for each contributor) but ,given their incompetence with the big stuff, it's no surprising they can't handle anything small that's out of routine.

« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2015, 04:02 »
0
OK that's as good of an explanation as I'll get, thanks.


It still seems weird that they can't make retrospective adjustments (not as if they send individual payments to revenue for each contributor) but ,given their incompetence with the big stuff, it's no surprising they can't handle anything small that's out of routine.

Of course they could make those adjustments but they won't because it's too much like hard work  >:(

« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2015, 07:07 »
0
OK that's as good of an explanation as I'll get, thanks.


It still seems weird that they can't make retrospective adjustments (not as if they send individual payments to revenue for each contributor) but ,given their incompetence with the big stuff, it's no surprising they can't handle anything small that's out of routine.

Of course they could make those adjustments but they won't because it's too much like hard work  >:(
I think I read that it's an issue the contributor has to take up with the IRS. 

« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2015, 16:21 »
-3
OK that's as good of an explanation as I'll get, thanks.


It still seems weird that they can't make retrospective adjustments (not as if they send individual payments to revenue for each contributor) but ,given their incompetence with the big stuff, it's no surprising they can't handle anything small that's out of routine.

Of course they could make those adjustments but they won't because it's too much like hard work  >:(
I think I read that it's an issue the contributor has to take up with the IRS.
Yes, that is indeed their position but only because it is their position and they don't have the imagination or competence to handle the matter like a professional organisation.  No doubt withholding tax is sitting in their account earning interest in the meantime...

Micky_Mango

« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2015, 00:50 »
+8
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.

« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2015, 05:39 »
0
AS I understand it, although the interview was / is conducted through the iStock website, the arrangement whereby you are not liable to pay US taxes is actually directly between you as an individual or company, and the American IRS. It's nothing as such to do with iStock itself. The IRS then gives iStock permission to pay you the full amount without the witholding tax being taken.
iStock can't just pay the full amount to you without permission from the IRS or they would become liable for the tax money.

« Reply #20 on: June 09, 2015, 17:16 »
-1
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.
I have said earlier that failing to do the tax interview was on me (taking responsibility).  Also true that we are talking about a trivial sum of money.  However, in principle, the mechanics of the situation are that money is moved from the contributor to a pot of money for revenue which is paid out at various points in time but will always have some funds there.  Where a deduction should not have made (for whatever reason) it should be a simple matter to debit one account and credit the other - this is how companies (even American ones as I happen to be employed by one) operate. So, notwithstanding my error, I stand over my statement that there is a lack of competence and imagination involved by IS.  This is the very same IS who feels that its FAQ takes precedence over the contract it enters into with its contributors.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2015, 17:20 by heywoody »

Micky_Mango

« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2015, 03:53 »
+7
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.
I have said earlier that failing to do the tax interview was on me (taking responsibility).  Also true that we are talking about a trivial sum of money.  However, in principle, the mechanics of the situation are that money is moved from the contributor to a pot of money for revenue which is paid out at various points in time but will always have some funds there.  Where a deduction should not have made (for whatever reason) it should be a simple matter to debit one account and credit the other - this is how companies (even American ones as I happen to be employed by one) operate. So, notwithstanding my error, I stand over my statement that there is a lack of competence and imagination involved by IS.  This is the very same IS who feels that its FAQ takes precedence over the contract it enters into with its contributors.
IS have many tens of thousands of contributors, do you really expect them to start making individual adjustments to the many thousands who doubtless failed to take any notice of the many weeks of reminders of forum posts and emails, to pay back tiny amounts of money to people who couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on their own businesses? As I said before, there is a principle in taxation that you are only taxed once on income, so any tax IS have deducted won't be a million miles from what you would have paid in your own country, where you won't have to pay tax a second time on the already taxed income, so really, you are using a tiny tiny stick to beat IS when the fault lies with you anyway. How much are we talking about? A few dollars? I'm the first in line to criticise IS when the deserve it, but in this case the lack of competence and imagination is down to you buddy. Perhaps you should also read Difydave's post too, where he states "The IRS then gives iStock permission to pay you the full amount without the witholding tax being taken.
iStock can't just pay the full amount to you without permission from the IRS or they would become liable for the tax money. "
« Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 03:58 by Micky_Mango »

« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2015, 07:21 »
+4
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.
I have said earlier that failing to do the tax interview was on me (taking responsibility).  Also true that we are talking about a trivial sum of money.  However, in principle, the mechanics of the situation are that money is moved from the contributor to a pot of money for revenue which is paid out at various points in time but will always have some funds there.  Where a deduction should not have made (for whatever reason) it should be a simple matter to debit one account and credit the other - this is how companies (even American ones as I happen to be employed by one) operate. So, notwithstanding my error, I stand over my statement that there is a lack of competence and imagination involved by IS.  This is the very same IS who feels that its FAQ takes precedence over the contract it enters into with its contributors.


The taxman wants the tax due to him. iStock arranged for YOU to get YOUR waiver (or whatever it is called, it's an official IRS document) to not pay the tax through their website. This saved anyone who did the interview from having to contact the IRS directly and sort it out themselves to get it.
It worked OK for the vast majority of people, which is pretty good when you consider that there are at least four sets of people involved, you, iStock, the US IRS, and your own domestic tax
service.
I'm certainly not an iStock woo-yayer, but it seems to me that they got this right. Also I have never known iStock be anything but completely straightforward when it comes to actual payments. If it's actually owed to you then it will get paid. Sometimes not straight away, but that's typical of big business dealing with small payments,


It really isn't as simple as just shuffling the money around internally. As already said iStock would be liable for the tax themselves.

« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2015, 18:43 »
+1
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.
I have said earlier that failing to do the tax interview was on me (taking responsibility).  Also true that we are talking about a trivial sum of money.  However, in principle, the mechanics of the situation are that money is moved from the contributor to a pot of money for revenue which is paid out at various points in time but will always have some funds there.  Where a deduction should not have made (for whatever reason) it should be a simple matter to debit one account and credit the other - this is how companies (even American ones as I happen to be employed by one) operate. So, notwithstanding my error, I stand over my statement that there is a lack of competence and imagination involved by IS.  This is the very same IS who feels that its FAQ takes precedence over the contract it enters into with its contributors.
IS have many tens of thousands of contributors, do you really expect them to start making individual adjustments to the many thousands who doubtless failed to take any notice of the many weeks of reminders of forum posts and emails, to pay back tiny amounts of money to people who couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on their own businesses? As I said before, there is a principle in taxation that you are only taxed once on income, so any tax IS have deducted won't be a million miles from what you would have paid in your own country, where you won't have to pay tax a second time on the already taxed income, so really, you are using a tiny tiny stick to beat IS when the fault lies with you anyway. How much are we talking about? A few dollars? I'm the first in line to criticise IS when the deserve it, but in this case the lack of competence and imagination is down to you buddy. Perhaps you should also read Difydave's post too, where he states "The IRS then gives iStock permission to pay you the full amount without the witholding tax being taken.
iStock can't just pay the full amount to you without permission from the IRS or they would become liable for the tax money. "


Here's the thing, "buddy".  A well designed IT system would accommodate this situation automatically either by holding payments pending completion of the tax form or by auto adjusting balances.  Not everyone lives on their forum or waits with bated breath to read the next bit of spam they issue in case it has something significant to say. 

« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2015, 05:12 »
+3
A well designed IT system would accommodate this situation automatically either by holding payments pending completion of the tax form or by auto adjusting balances.

Not necessarily. Systems are defined by the rules which they implement (using rules here in the systems-analytical sense). Unless you know those rules you are not in a position to judge whether a system is well designed or not. The rules of this system are likely constrained by two potentially overlapping sets of requirements - i.e. IRS process  / regulation and the contractual obligation to pay.

{Also _  This is just like -> if you were to overpay on the PAYE system in Ireland (or the UK) you would have to claim it back from the government. Not from the employer.}

« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2015, 05:26 »
0
A well designed IT system would accommodate this situation automatically either by holding payments pending completion of the tax form or by auto adjusting balances.

Not necessarily. Systems are defined by the rules which they implement (using rules here in the systems-analytical sense). Unless you know those rules you are not in a position to judge whether a system is well designed or not. The rules of this system are likely constrained by two potentially overlapping sets of requirements - i.e. IRS process  / regulation and the contractual obligation to pay.

{Also _  This is just like -> if you were to overpay on the PAYE system in Ireland (or the UK) you would have to claim it back from the government. Not from the employer.}
Wrong on both points: 


1. The "rules" in a properly designed IT solution would have accommodated this as it is a blindingly obvious scenario - I seriously doubt there was any actual systems analysis performed here just an instruction to hack whatever dodgy code they had already.  I would be hugely embarrassed if I missed something like that in one of my specs.


2. In Ireland, overpayments of PAYE are refunded by the employer where new information is notified within the current tax year - one only has to contact revenue in the case over overpayments due for previous years.

Micky_Mango

« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2015, 05:41 »
+2
Although IS have been woefully ill prepared for changes in the past it is hard to fault how they handled the new payment and tax changes, with months of emails and forum posts explaining the upcoming changes. To call them incompetent on this issue is a bit unfair, and to take no responsibility yourself is a bit rich IMHO. Did you not read any of the information or emails regarding the changes? They were made very clear, and it's hard to see what more they could have done. Sometimes we have to take a bit of responsibility ourselves. On top of this, the amounts you are talking about must be very small, you have 300 sales at IS in 6 years so not a great deal in terms of money. You are also presumably aware that if your income is taxed once ( ie. you are taxed in US on your income from US) you won't be taxed on it again in the UK? This is sounding like a very small storm in a teacup.
I have said earlier that failing to do the tax interview was on me (taking responsibility).  Also true that we are talking about a trivial sum of money.  However, in principle, the mechanics of the situation are that money is moved from the contributor to a pot of money for revenue which is paid out at various points in time but will always have some funds there.  Where a deduction should not have made (for whatever reason) it should be a simple matter to debit one account and credit the other - this is how companies (even American ones as I happen to be employed by one) operate. So, notwithstanding my error, I stand over my statement that there is a lack of competence and imagination involved by IS.  This is the very same IS who feels that its FAQ takes precedence over the contract it enters into with its contributors.
IS have many tens of thousands of contributors, do you really expect them to start making individual adjustments to the many thousands who doubtless failed to take any notice of the many weeks of reminders of forum posts and emails, to pay back tiny amounts of money to people who couldn't be bothered to keep an eye on their own businesses? As I said before, there is a principle in taxation that you are only taxed once on income, so any tax IS have deducted won't be a million miles from what you would have paid in your own country, where you won't have to pay tax a second time on the already taxed income, so really, you are using a tiny tiny stick to beat IS when the fault lies with you anyway. How much are we talking about? A few dollars? I'm the first in line to criticise IS when the deserve it, but in this case the lack of competence and imagination is down to you buddy. Perhaps you should also read Difydave's post too, where he states "The IRS then gives iStock permission to pay you the full amount without the witholding tax being taken.
iStock can't just pay the full amount to you without permission from the IRS or they would become liable for the tax money. "


Here's the thing, "buddy".  A well designed IT system would accommodate this situation automatically either by holding payments pending completion of the tax form or by auto adjusting balances.  Not everyone lives on their forum or waits with bated breath to read the next bit of spam they issue in case it has something significant to say.
Look bud, you need to find a less stressful hobby if you're getting so worked up over a couple of dollars.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2015, 05:54 »
0


{Also _  This is just like -> if you were to overpay on the PAYE system in Ireland (or the UK) you would have to claim it back from the government. Not from the employer.}

Actually no, I have overpaid PAYE in my first month at my new employer and by issuing my P45 to HR, I will get a correction my PAYE charges on my next paycheck from my employer.

« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2015, 06:03 »
0
Look bud, you need to find a less stressful hobby if you're getting so worked up over a couple of dollars.


The conversation has nothing to do with the few dollars - explanation given ages ago and accepted.  The conversation is about the IS fan boys saying the company handled this in and effective and professional manner and I'm simply pointing out that your standards in this regard are very low.

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2015, 12:28 »
+5
In an earlier post you complained about lack of communication from iS. Then you admitted you don't read their forums or email. Apart from Lobo visiting you personally and hitting you with his hammer, what else did you expect?
Why not just chalk this up to your mistake and move on?
One doesn't have to be a fanperson to see that iS is not really at fault here.
FWIW way back in the day I claimed a payout and stupidly put the wrong email addy for Paypal and of course the payment was rejected. I put it down as a lesson in user idiocy, but around a year later CR contacted me out of the blue and I got the payment.

« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2015, 16:45 »
0
My point about communication is that something would be triggered by the payment process itself - I'm sure lots of others don't visit the forum or pay attention to their mails.


There is an interesting contrast with the way the PP overpayment was handled.  IS mistake but it didn't stop them going to the effort of recovering trivial sums (less than being discussed here) from thousands of contributors.

« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2015, 01:27 »
+3
There is a solution, you know. Quit iStock.

Micky_Mango

« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2015, 01:42 »
+3
There is a solution, you know. Quit iStock.
He'd have nothing to complain about then.

ShadySue

« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2015, 02:42 »
+1
There is a solution, you know. Quit iStock.
He'd have nothing to complain about then.
The alternatives seem not to be totally complaint-free zones.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2015, 03:11 »
+1
There is a solution, you know. Quit iStock.
He'd have nothing to complain about then.
Complaining about someone else complaining seems even more fruitless to me.

« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2015, 04:51 »
0
The "rules" in a properly designed IT solution would have accommodated this as it is a blindingly obvious scenario

Not if compliance with the IRS processes require them to do things in some particular way.

I believe that we can assume that this is down to the IRS - since the same conditions apply with respect to Kindle authors (if you Google this - bear in mind that many of the conflicting answers pre-date the recent revisions). Anyone looking to claim back an over-payment (including as a result of incomplete details) needs to deal directly with the IRS (which I think means submitting a US tax return). That's the system.
 
There is an interesting contrast with the way the PP overpayment was handled.

No this comparison doesn't work. Because it is not about contributors trying to get money back from the IRS.

« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2015, 05:53 »
0
There is a solution, you know. Quit iStock.
He'd have nothing to complain about then.


I'd certainly have less to complain about but I enjoy a good rant  8) .  Take away complaints and forum posts would be a little thinner on the ground.


The "rules" in a properly designed IT solution would have accommodated this as it is a blindingly obvious scenario
 

 Not if compliance with the IRS processes require them to do things in some particular way.
 
 I believe that we can assume that this is down to the IRS - since the same conditions apply with respect to Kindle authors (if you Google this - bear in mind that many of the conflicting answers pre-date the recent revisions). Anyone looking to claim back an over-payment (including as a result of incomplete details) needs to deal directly with the IRS (which I think means submitting a US tax return). That's the system.
A competent systems analyst would have identified this obvious scenario and put in place rules that would have prevented the deduction in the first place.  Putting in place exception scenarios to handle user mistakes is a significant consideration putting use cases or requirements lists together.
 
 
There is an interesting contrast with the way the PP overpayment was handled.
 

 No this comparison doesn't work. Because it is not about contributors trying to get money back from the IRS.
 
This point has some marginal merit in a situation where the deduction details and money has already been sent to IRS and they send returns for each individual payment to contributors.  US taxes most likely operate differently to here but, where I live, tax adjustments (PAYE or as an independent contractor) either + or can be handled without going to revenue until such time as final returns are made for the year.  In fact, one can only look to Revenue for tax refunds in respect of previous tax years.
In any case the point I was making was more general.  They made a big effort to chase down individual contributors over pennies because its their money. How successful would they have been if they adopted the forum posts and email approach there?

« Reply #37 on: June 13, 2015, 08:27 »
+1
A competent systems analyst would have identified this obvious scenario and put in place rules that would have prevented the deduction in the first place.

You are presuming that the IRS processes would allow this. I am assuming that they don't.

Putting in place exception scenarios to handle user mistakes is a significant consideration putting use cases or requirements lists together.

Yes and no. Knowing about possible exceptions is certainly an important part of analysis. But effective design is equally about taking deliberate decisions about what the system actually needs to do (for example - deliberately deciding to leave something out because of some conflict or difference of precedence between 2 criteria). Bear in mind that iStock has a contractual obligation to make the payout as detailed.

The system is not just IT. And it does include and account for the possibility of users failing to properly complete the paperwork - by thoroughly documenting and explaining the entire process well in advance.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2015, 08:41 by bunhill »

« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2015, 10:02 »
0
I'm no expert on US income tax arrangements but have been involved in systems deployments for US companies that included a withholding tax element and did cater for this type of situation. Some organisations do a bit of planning / analysis and design a solution that caters for their various stakeholders, some slap on a band-aid.

« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2015, 10:12 »
0
(I) have been involved in systems deployments for US companies that included a withholding tax element and did cater for this type of situation.

How did the implementation work in practice ? Are you saying that the system was capable of doing a refund in the event that a person later submitted different details ? Or was payment withheld until after the person's tax details had been accepted ?

ShadySue

« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2015, 16:35 »
+2
My point about communication is that something would be triggered by the payment process itself - I'm sure lots of others don't visit the forum or pay attention to their mails.
As someone said above, we each have a responsibility to take care of our own business.

Anyway, let's say the payment process flagged up that you hadn't bothered to do the tax interview. They might have sent you an email and you'd have ignored it.
Then what?
(Indeed, it might have happened in fact, but you wouldn't know.)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
389 Replies
79803 Views
Last post June 05, 2009, 15:10
by Mormegil
6 Replies
2840 Views
Last post November 20, 2013, 18:45
by MatHayward
3 Replies
1239 Views
Last post March 26, 2014, 14:27
by Pilens
2 Replies
777 Views
Last post October 11, 2015, 20:44
by Mrblues101
4 Replies
1694 Views
Last post December 11, 2015, 11:00
by drd

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors