IRS Publication 15-B
Good Evening:
I didn't have much time research this issue. However, I was referred to this website, WWW.IRS.GOV. Under Publication 15-B.
IRS Publication 15-B states:
A town provides cars which its officials and other employees use during the workday for business purposes. These employees also use the cars for commuting to and from work. Is the use of these vehicles for commuting taxable income to the employees?
The value of noncash fringe benefits is taxable income to the recipient. Thus the commuting value of a vehicle owned or leased by a public entity usually represents taxable income to the employee.
One exception is for the qualified nonpersonal use vehicle, described above. Thus, for example, when a law enforcement officer drives a clearly marked police car to his or her residence when off duty and otherwise satisfies the requirements described above, the commuting value of that vehicle is not income to the employee.
There are several ways to value the commuting use of a car for income and FICA tax purposes: the cents-per-mile rule, the lease value rule, and the commuting rule. Under the cents-per-mile rule, the value of the use of a car is the standard mileage rate (44.5 cents per mile in 2006) multiplied by the number of personal miles driven. Under the lease value rule, the value of the use of the car is the annual lease value (in the regulations) less the amount of use which would be a working condition fringe to the employee. See section 1.61-21(d)(2), Income Tax Regulations, which also discusses this valuation method in detail. To qualify as a working condition fringe, the business use must be deductible as a business expense by the employee. This means that the employee must keep a log to account for the business miles driven. More information about these methods can be found in Publication 15-B, Employer's Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits.
Under limited circumstances, the "commuting rule" can be used to determine the commuting value of a car. Under this rule, the employer determines the commuting value by multiplying each one-way commute (from home to work or from work to home) by $1.50. If more than one employee commutes in the vehicle, this value applies to each employee. To use this rule, the employer must meet all the following requirements:
The employer owns or leases the vehicle and provides it to one or more employees for business use.
For bona fide noncompensatory business reasons, the employee is required to commute in the vehicle. The employer is treated as meeting this requirement if the vehicle is generally used each workday to carry at least three employees to and from work in an employer-sponsored commuting pool.
The employer establishes a written policy under which the employee is not allowed to use the vehicle for personal purposes, other than for commuting or de minimis personal use (such as a stop for a personal errand on the way between a business delivery and the employee's home).
The employee does not use the vehicle for personal purposes, other than commuting and de minimis personal use.
If this vehicle is an automobile, the employee who must use it for commuting is not a control employee. An elected official is always a control employee. (For tax year 2006, a control employee of a government employer is an elected official or one whose compensation is $133,900 or more for the year.)
The term "bona fide noncompensatory business reason" means that the employee must be required to commute in the vehicle for the benefit of the employer, not for the benefit of the employee. Examples include the following:
- The employee was driving a van in an employer-sponsored carpool.
- The car, though unmarked, was outfitted with communications or other equipment the employee would need if on call 24 hours a day.
- The unavailability of parking at the workplace.
- An employee in the field, who would otherwise have to return to the workplace before going home, might be able to work longer if allowed to commute in an employer-provided vehicle. It is not enough for the employer to simply state that it requires employees to commute in employer-owned vehicles.
It is the responsibility of the City Administration to calculate these benefits and show it as part of the employee's salary. This should be in the Town records.
posted by John Q. Taxpayer @ 7:25 PM
17 comments
17 Comments:
John Q wrote - "I certainly would like to know if the city employees are filing the use of town vehicles as part of their income. A call to the IRS should give us an answer."
In this statement you posted, you most certainly ARE inquiring about the contents of the "city employees" (Individuals)tax returns. Why are you denying that you made this inquiry now?
If that is not what this statement means then how is it supposed to be interpreted? You are obviously not asking about the City Government's tax returns in that you state "...if the city employees are filing the use of town vehicles as part of their income." This clearly indicates your interest in individual tax returns does it not?
I guess this means as long as you don't go shopping and out to eat, transport anyone not employeed by the city, you're okay.
If you drive here, there and everywhere, you got some calculating to do.
I am so glad you found this. You had a lot better luck than I did. I guess I didn't put in the right search words. Again!
YAWN
IGNORE ANONYMOUS
Jack one reason people should be worried about the tax returns is because the city (then us as taxpayers) could be in trouble if the city office girls are doing the wrong.
I hadn't thought about that. Just one more reason to worry. Just what we need, put out more money we than we have .
I might want to forget about what I'll live on in my old age.It might not be pretty.
i don't have a copy of the report but I was told that the last municipal audit conducted on White Bluff found over 50 things* not up to snuff.
Maybe they are doing 100% perfect now who knows.
But it could make a person wonder.
*Call city hall for verification, it would be interesting to see what they tell you. Maybe I got some bad info.
Good luck contacting city hall. They'll only tell you what they want you to know.
Ever tried it?A friend of mine did, you just get the run around.
I did hear they got one of the worst audits in the state. I believe it was in the last few years too.
it was basically the same crew running things there as now.
Legally that have to show you the documents.
But if they don't the only thing to do is get a lawyer.
If they do talk to you ask them about split invoices
Do they get a discount or savings with a split invoice?
LOOKS LIKE THE CUSSING GIRLS HAVE LOST THEIR TOUNGES AFTER GETTING DELETED. CAN"T THEY TALK WITHOUT TALKING DIRTY
Tiny Dancer,
Talking about "split invoices", I can't be sure what the person above is refering to, but going along with the subject of audits, budgets, how money is spent etc, I can at least give a guess.
Here is a little fairy tale to illustrate. Long ago and far away,
let us say in a mythical town with no name, the Local High Council has approved a budget for the year. But during the course of the year the Lord High Town Executive or his underlings decide for themselves that something extra needs to be purchased. One course of action for hizzoner is to go back to the council and request more funds.
Now that would of course be time consuming for small items, so most every town sets an amount that is allowed to be spent without seeking approval.
For our mythical town let us say that sum is $500.
But what if the executive or his staff wants to spend more than $500, let us say $5000.
You would think the only thing they could (and really should do in that case is to go back and ask the council, who are in theory anyway the representatives of the citizens of this mythical town.
But, and here is where the "split invoices" come in to play. Let us say the $5000 is to build an outhouse behind the town Palace, instead of treating that as one expense the executive and those under him might say, well we are only spending $499 on lumber, $499 on hardware, $499 on plumbing, $499 on each laborer....so we are not going over the limit we are allowed.
Another example might be they want to have a big party for the town,always fun. But it can cost money.
So instead of laying out $5000 for food, drink, trimmings, bands, decorations, etc, they might say well we are spending $499 on Pepsi, $499 on Ham, $499 for a singer, $499 for the piano player, well you get the point.
I can't say for sure, but I think that sort of thing is sorta frowned upon.
So anyway, that would be my take on "split invoices". Not that I have any knowledge of something like that going on, just wanted to give you an example.
check into the stock money from the old ensco factory
john q taxpayer
would you please say who you really are?
it would make you more believeable
and
keep innocent people from being accused
think about it and do the right thing
I don't think other people are afraid of being accused, as you put it, of being John Q. As for doing the right thing, as you also put it, what makes you the authority of "the right thing"?
I think what you mean, people will know who to blame for getting people to think for themselves and ask questions instead of keeping their mouth shut and not ask anything at all.
AS for John Q is, I can tell you.
John Q is any male tax payer.Jane Q is a female tax payer.Identity solved.
why would anyone be worried about "blame'
for a good thing?
Traci and Nicky have taken blame already.Who knows who else will be falsely accused?
Maybe they are not afraid as you put it, but is it fair to them?
I think this blog is a good thing but if you were open it would do even more good.
I don't really like that word"accuse". I don't even see why people are concerned who runs this web site.
I also read Nicky's page. He said himself he wasn't bothered by taking the blame/credit .
I think if people are taking blame/credit, and are troubled by it, it would make more sense for them to to write a post on here using their name to let John Q know how they feel.
Let me clarify, I really don't want the blame and or credit for this page.
That is not because of the content, but mainly because I am not the one behind the page. If you want to know my opinions I already have a page for that.
Someone is taking the time and effort to do this and if people like that they should let them know they appreciate it, and if not well they should express that 'politely' as well.
But for hopefully the last time, it is not me or someone in my family. And as of 4:11 PM Sunday I still do not know who is doing this page.
thank you and have a fine day.
Legal Terminology
"Right of Action"
The privilege of instituting a lawsuit arising from a particular transaction or state of facts, such as a suit that is based on a contract or a tort, a civil wrong.
"Cause of Action"
The fact or combination of facts that gives a person the right to seek judicial redress or relief against another. Also, the legal theory forming the basis of a lawsuit.
The cause of action is the heart of the complaint, which is the pleading that initiates a lawsuit. Without an adequately stated cause of action the plaintiff's case can be dismissed at the outset. It is not sufficient merely to state that certain events occurred that entitle the plaintiff to relief. All the elements of each cause of action must be detailed in the complaint. The claims must be supported by the facts, the law, and a conclusion that flows from the application of the law to those facts.
The cause of action is often stated in the form of a syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning that begins with a major premise (the applicable rule of law), proceeds to a minor premise (the facts that gave rise to the claim), and ends with a conclusion. In a cause of action for battery, the rule of law is that any intentional, unpermitted act that causes a harmful or offensive touching of another is a battery. This is the major premise and is stated first. Supporting facts, constituting the minor premise, appear after the rule of law. For example, a statement of facts for a case of battery might be "The plaintiff, while walking through ABC Store on the afternoon of March 11, 1998, was tackled by the defendant, a security guard for the store, who knocked the plaintiff to the floor and held her there by kneeling on her back and holding her arms behind her, while screaming in her ear to open her shopping bag. These actions caused the plaintiff to suffer injuries to her head, chest, shoulders, neck, and back." The cause of action concludes with a statement that the defendant is responsible for the plaintiff's injuries and that the plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant.
The facts or circumstances that entitle a person to seek judicial relief may create more than one cause of action. For example, in the preceding example, the plaintiff might assert claims for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of civil rights. She might also bring claims for negligent hiring (if the guard had a history of violent behavior which the store failed to discover) or negligent supervision. (When damages are caused by an employee it is common to sue both the employee and the employer.) All these causes of action arise from the same set of facts and circumstances but are supported by different rules of law and constitute separate claims for relief.
A cause of action can arise from an act, a failure to perform a legal obligation, a breach of duty, or a violation or invasion of a right. The importance of the act, failure, breach, or violation lies in its legal effect or characterization and in how the facts and circumstances, considered as a whole, relate to applicable law. A set of facts may have no legal effect in one situation, whereas the same or similar facts may have significant legal implications in another situation. For example, tackling a shoplifting suspect who is brandishing a gun is a legitimate action by a security guard and probably would not support a claim for relief if the suspect were injured in the fracas. On the other hand, tackling a shopper who merely acts in a suspicious manner while carrying a shopping bag is a questionable exercise of a guard's duty and may well give rise to justiciable causes of action.
Take the right avenue to address the situation concerning "The New City Hall" etc.
It is "The Right" of the people to address this issue. There may be a "Special Meeting" which my be call to confront such issues. One should "petition" the formal entity that would endorse legal action. If there is "doubt" that the residents are not being represented "rightly" or "fairly" and the well being of the township is being threatened by over funding or funds are being misappropriated or squandered then it should be the right of "The People" to call for a moratorium on the issue until all the "facts" as they relate to liabilities and or assets can be addressed.
Post a Comment
<< Home