pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties"  (Read 97685 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #500 on: February 25, 2014, 18:32 »
+1
Interesting way to boost their cashflow for the next 6 months.  Are they for sale again?

Don't forget this affects your personal taxes also because you actually received the money in 2013 and are having it clawed back in 2014.

Have any Canadians received their T-5's yet?  Poor Elena (You are from Quebec I believe?), she likely has to pay about $560 in taxes on that amount if she is in say a 36% tax bracket because she received it in 2013 - but say she has lower tax earning this year of clawback (like she drops Istock perchance  ;)) she may be at a lower tax rate and get screwed again by the difference.

Toronto actually:) But ya I thought about that - I am to pay taxes on the amount they will claw back, and it will affect my tax installments. So, fun year ahead of me - my tax installments will be bigger, and my income - smaller!


lisafx

« Reply #501 on: February 25, 2014, 18:58 »
+1
... I am to pay taxes on the amount they will claw back, and it will affect my tax installments. So, fun year ahead of me - my tax installments will be bigger, and my income - smaller!

Same situation here in the US.  I already included the overpayment in my 2013 income.  I will be deducting the monthly clawback from 2014 income though.  Not sure it will equal out in the end, but it's all I can think of to do about it. 

« Reply #502 on: February 25, 2014, 19:00 »
+8
I think many folks are missing the fact that if the money wasn't ours it should go back. The crime is IS not providing the detailed data to us. This is an accounting issue and they should be transparent. Say for instance I already did my taxes, and next year I have to report the loss. What happen if I get audited, what proof do I have outside of the letter. Without the data the numbers IS is claiming is arbitrary. Even if it is accurate it is arbitrary until we have the sales data. If I expense something for work and cannot provide a receipt I don't get reimbursed. If I itemize things on my taxes and have no proof when audited, I owe that money back plus interest and penalties. It's bad enough we trust them to report accurately, but not to provide details is criminal. And I'm not talking about details of the error, I am talking about detailed sales data for those months. I get that unexpected errors happen, but they need to due their part in providing accurate data. They are brass for not providing such info and are probably banking on the contributors to muddy this enough to mask the real issue. If they can not furnish this data we all have a legal right to seek council.  If they do not provide this data they must be banking that we won't file a class action lawsuit against them.

In short,recouping funds is not illegal, but not varnishing the data is.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #503 on: February 25, 2014, 19:10 »
+1
@ Lisa and Elena ~
Move to the UK. Our tax year starts 6th April, and self-employed people have until 31st January of the following year to file their tax form electronically.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf
Apparently that's because of late payers, late invoicers etc.

« Reply #504 on: February 25, 2014, 19:14 »
+14
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.

« Reply #505 on: February 25, 2014, 19:16 »
0
I think many folks are missing the fact that if the money wasn't ours it should go back. The crime is IS not providing the detailed data to us. This is an accounting issue and they should be transparent. Say for instance I already did my taxes, and next year I have to report the loss. What happen if I get audited, what proof do I have outside of the letter. Without the data the numbers IS is claiming is arbitrary. Even if it is accurate it is arbitrary until we have the sales data. If I expense something for work and cannot provide a receipt I don't get reimbursed. If I itemize things on my taxes and have no proof when audited, I owe that money back plus interest and penalties. It's bad enough we trust them to report accurately, but not to provide details is criminal. And I'm not talking about details of the error, I am talking about detailed sales data for those months. I get that unexpected errors happen, but they need to due their part in providing accurate data. They are brass for not providing such info and are probably banking on the contributors to muddy this enough to mask the real issue. If they can not furnish this data we all have a legal right to seek council.  If they do not provide this data they must be banking that we won't file a class action lawsuit against them.

In short,recouping funds is not illegal, but not varnishing the data is.

Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.

Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.

If they do send some form to the US then we'll see the deduction there next year.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 19:19 by DonLand »

lisafx

« Reply #506 on: February 25, 2014, 19:18 »
0
@ Lisa and Elena ~
Move to the UK. Our tax year starts 6th April, and self-employed people have until 31st January of the following year to file their tax form electronically.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf
Apparently that's because of late payers, late invoicers etc.


Thank you for the invitation.  I'd be delighted to move to the UK, but not sure they'd have me ;)

lisafx

« Reply #507 on: February 25, 2014, 19:19 »
+1

Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.

Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.

No, if you are in the US we don't get a 1099 from Istock, nor any other paperwork. 

Only thing I can think of to do is to print out the e-mail and take to my accountant with next year's taxes...

« Reply #508 on: February 25, 2014, 19:20 »
0
@ Lisa and Elena ~
Move to the UK. Our tax year starts 6th April, and self-employed people have until 31st January of the following year to file their tax form electronically.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/tax-deadlines.pdf
Apparently that's because of late payers, late invoicers etc.


Thank you for the invitation.  I'd be delighted to move to the UK, but not sure they'd have me ;)


We seem to take most people .... in fact, almost anybody if the Daily Mail is to be believed.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #509 on: February 25, 2014, 19:20 »
-1
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock.  I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??

« Reply #510 on: February 25, 2014, 19:24 »
0
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.

I get that, but that isn't real until IS provided the data. I was also referring to folks still jumping on the argument that IS should've recoup. It's all a poor argument until we have proof

« Reply #511 on: February 25, 2014, 19:24 »
+1

Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.

Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.

No, if you are in the US we don't get a 1099 from Istock.

Doesn't matter anyway as this year we will simply receive less which will be shown on next years forms. As an example if they grab $1000 back this year from you, your income showing for this year will be $1000 less.

lisafx

« Reply #512 on: February 25, 2014, 19:27 »
+4
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock.  I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??

Of course it's something to think about.  I assume that most of us who make a significant portion of our income in stock, and at istock in particular, are having to revisit this issue on a fairly regular basis.   

The basic calculation is whether the money made is worth the BS put up with.  Each time something like this happens more people decide it isn't. 

But the fact that many contributors continue to submit to them doesn't in any way excuse or negate their negligence. 

« Reply #513 on: February 25, 2014, 19:28 »
+2
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock.  I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??

They still make some of us money, but the line is getting thinner.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #514 on: February 25, 2014, 19:32 »
+1
In reading this thread and related ones on the iStock forum I get the impression there is a lot of contributor mistrust toward iStock.  I'm wondering, it that is the case, why would anyone continue to work for/with a company they didn't trust?
Let the negatives fly but, IMO, it is something to think about, isn't it??

Seems like the only micro company that anyone trusts around here is SS, so if you choose not to support subs (I know, it's not all subs) it's devil or deep blue sea. Or there are other companies which are probably trustworthy, but garner very few sales.

Anyway, former bigwig at iS (JJRD) said it was a 'new kind of trust' we should have with iS - one of several words iStock has redefined (others being mainly connected to time, like 'soon', 'tomorrow', 'next week', 'in due course')

« Reply #515 on: February 25, 2014, 19:38 »
+1
Anyway, former bigwig at iS (JJRD) said it was a 'new kind of trust' we should have with iS - one of several words iStock has redefined (others being mainly connected to time, like 'soon', 'tomorrow', 'next week', 'in due course')
Didn't it ultimately turn out to be a kind of trust he couldn't stomach?
The question of continuing to sell at iS is now becoming very difficult. Even with the cuts they've inflicted, the earnings from there thrown into the overall pile make the difference between hobby earnings and a job for me. I need both iStock and SS to have an income that looks half-decent.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #516 on: February 25, 2014, 19:56 »
0
Anyway, former bigwig at iS (JJRD) said it was a 'new kind of trust' we should have with iS - one of several words iStock has redefined (others being mainly connected to time, like 'soon', 'tomorrow', 'next week', 'in due course')
Didn't it ultimately turn out to be a kind of trust he couldn't stomach?
I believe he was let go in that big 'letting go' event, whereafter things got even worse, but he continues to submit images regularly, and is still exclusive.

« Reply #517 on: February 25, 2014, 20:05 »
+3
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.

I get that, but that isn't real until IS provided the data. I was also referring to folks still jumping on the argument that IS should've recoup. It's all a poor argument until we have proof

On the contrary, it IS real until iStock provide proof. It is the ones helping themselves to money who have to demonstrate that it is justified, not the ones having money taken off them who need to show that it isn't.

All the accounts are in iStock's hands, not in ours. If there is a case for recouping money (and there probably is) then they should provide evidence of it, not just say "it's ours, we're helping ourselves".
« Last Edit: February 25, 2014, 20:08 by BaldricksTrousers »

vilainecrevette

« Reply #518 on: February 25, 2014, 20:22 »
0
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.


If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?


I don't close it already, I just wait to reach the minimum payment with several images and I close it.
Even if I deactivate my images I don't like the idea they still have them. I hope (naively) if I close my account I have more chance than they delete my images definitively.

« Reply #519 on: February 25, 2014, 20:52 »
0
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.


If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?


I don't close it already, I just wait to reach the minimum payment with several images and I close it.
Even if I deactivate my images I don't like the idea they still have them. I hope (naively) if I close my account I have more chance than they delete my images definitively.


I don't think it works that way.  When I closed my account the first time and then went back, all my files were still there, even though I had deactivated all of them before closing the account.

« Reply #520 on: February 25, 2014, 21:05 »
-4
Dingles, I'm not sure anyone is missing the point. If the demand had come with a detailed transaction list (and an apology), and if the sum demanded seemed to make sense when compared with average earnings over the period then I suspect the anger would be much diminished.
The lack of detailed information and the fact that people say the amount being deducted appears to exceed the probable error make it unacceptable.
Like you, I've argued that if it was a mistake then they should have the money back. But this looks, from what is being reported, as if they are just piling another mistake on top of the first one - only this time the mistake appears designed to fill their pockets at the expense of the contributor. And, unlike the initial mistake, this one looks as if it is deliberate and calculated.
If it does turn out to be a deliberate and systematic attempt to secure monies in excess of those that are owed from thousands of people, then I feel sure that the lawyers have a word to describe it.



I get that, but that isn't real until IS provided the data. I was also referring to folks still jumping on the argument that IS should've recoup. It's all a poor argument until we have proof

On the contrary, it IS real until iStock provide proof. It is the ones helping themselves to money who have to demonstrate that it is justified, not the ones having money taken off them who need to show that it isn't.

All the accounts are in iStock's hands, not in ours. If there is a case for recouping money (and there probably is) then they should provide evidence of it, not just say "it's ours, we're helping ourselves".

I think you misunderstood, I meant the accusations are not real until we have proof. So for now our focus should be obtaining our sales records for those months

vilainecrevette

« Reply #521 on: February 25, 2014, 21:37 »
+2
Quote
I don't think it works that way.  When I closed my account the first time and then went back, all my files were still there, even though I had deactivated all of them before closing the account.
Ouah, It's what I was afraid.
Thank for you feedback,

jbarber873

« Reply #522 on: February 25, 2014, 23:02 »
+1

Your 1099 from 2014 will show the minus income so you'll show whatever is less then.

Ok, thinking about it, maybe not as I don't know if we receive 1099's from Canada as I just got back and have not gone through the pile of mail to see.

No, if you are in the US we don't get a 1099 from Istock, nor any other paperwork. 

Only thing I can think of to do is to print out the e-mail and take to my accountant with next year's taxes...

Lisa- The IRS has a quick help phone number you can call for advice. It's easy to remember- just dial 1-800-AUDITME

Ron

« Reply #523 on: February 26, 2014, 02:22 »
+2
Could it be that they messed up the emails with the amounts? Can you trust IS to sent out 9000 emails with the correct account linked to the correct clawback. Maybe they ffed that up and maybe thats why things dont add up?

« Reply #524 on: February 26, 2014, 03:12 »
0
I don't close it already, I just wait to reach the minimum payment with several images and I close it.

You don't have to wait. They'll send you your money even under minimal treshold + PP for actual and next month.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
23143 Views
Last post March 21, 2010, 22:37
by UncleGene
4 Replies
8946 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
8697 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
25 Replies
49828 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
8 Replies
1750 Views
Last post September 27, 2023, 06:57
by Anyka

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors