Medlin Software, Dennis

If I could wave a wand and go back 40 years, I would be charging a flat rate for my payroll software, and a separate fee by state, for the states with WH. (See the thread on the upcoming AL change. I will likely be spending many hours on a small percentage of customers this fall.) I may actually implement something along this in a few years, keeping the fee the same for the no hassle (no state WH states) and only the next increase for the rest of the states. Have to balance it though, as more prices means more complication, and zero chance of automated orders, so never mind .

The text of the bill implies all amounts paid for work over 40 hours. So it is really not an OT law, as some likely get "OT" via contract or agreement, such as is often done for someone working 3 12's. AL has no state OT rule, so it reverts to FLSA and only time after 40. I saw something about this being a political item to "help" employers compete with neighbors who have no state income tax. At least they are honest this is only 5% savings on the extra pay, hoping to get employees to stay and or more readily agree to work OT. Will be interesting to see how this washes out. Hopefully they are careful with the implementation and avoid removing the exempted amount from "remuneration" for other purposes (such as UI, WC, etc.). The implication - based on the suggestion to show the OT amount in W2 box 14 - is the state wages on the W2 will be regular pay only, Too soon to be sure though as this likely just got in the hands of those tasked to implement.

“Amounts received by a full-time hourly wage paid employee as compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a week.“ Reading with my brain off, just the words, is all pay for work over 40 hours in a week.

I have the same question. Wording proves written by someone who never handled a payroll. I suspect on all wages after 40 hours. Even with that, the “benefit” to the employee still maxes as 5% of the exempted amount. If one believes rules come from someone willing to pay for the change, it is likely from employers claiming this will help them keep employees. The pre report for 2023 seems to be data collecting to see if ot is more or less in 2024. The sunset half way through 2025 smells extra fishy. Payroll folks who make money on complication win. Employers lose (explaining this one to employees). Tax preparers neutral, maybe revenue increase, maybe lost clients. Me? Probably lose. Cannot charge more for this. Likely lose some clients to payroll processors. Certainly a fair chunk of hours programming and later on, answering questions.

AL has decided OT premium (paid to employees) is NOT subject to AL withholding starting 1-1-24. There will need to be a report covering 2023 (likely data gathering), and reports going forward. Stubs and W2's will be affected as well. And for additional grins, it appears to apple for all of 2024, but only half of 2025! https://www.revenue.alabama.gov/aldor-provides-guidance-for-overtime-pay-exempt-from-income-tax/

Selfishness and perceived job protection is a factor. Commonality would reduce budget and staff. States sort of agreed to a common format for certain payroll data, but over time they all added tweaks, in some case, for no apparent reason. Some state programmers are better than others, or they think they are sneaky enough to make more work. What I mean is some cannot seem to trap carriage return characters at the end of a line (yet proclaim their format IS the same as SSA). This is just one of many sad examples. Frustrating at times, but awkwardly, also ensures life long work for those here.

I am (not really) amazed business owners neglected to claim ERC "on time". Those that did not, usually pay a fee for their inattentiveness, usually to some sort of forensic payroll "expert", and to their (likely new) tax preparer. I also wonder how they missed the timely ERC, self prepared payroll with pen and paper (software vendors were likely to have sent several reminders to check out ERC) and also self prepared tax returns? It would have been worse for me had I not informed/reminded ERC was available. I still get, maybe only weekly now, requests for creating 941x because of an "accountant" helping them claim ERC. As preparers, did you mention it at all to your business owner with employee clients? If not, why not at least as an FYI? As preparers have you revisited your client records and looked at clients missing ERC as an opportunity (some % of the ERC and some $ for amended return(s))? Tough one though, as the client may or is already asking why you did not point this out earlier. Or are your ERC amend clients mostly/all new? --- ERC still gripes me, the after the fact cancellation of the last quarter ERC so the numbers/$ could be shifted to another program. Many emplyoers had to scramble to come up with deposits when they thought the money would be covered by ERC.

Unless I can verify what I was told verbally, it is worth nothing to me. Just my opinion.

I limit to some sort of written format when asking for or giving assistance. Verbal assistance has no audit trail and no "standing" if relied on or challenged. For a phone call, you may as well be talking to anyone you randomly dial (unless there is something direct the person can do for you such as send a document).

Times are different. Was not that long ago the US PAID for legal citizens to return to their home location via the "Repatriation" Act (because of brown fear, repeated at internment camps for another set of legal residents/citizens just a few years later). My grandfather and uncle returned to PI under this act, and died/was murdered a few years later, Dec '41 (private citizens). My grandfather had committed the sin of marrying a pretty white nurse and had babies. He legally came to the US as a "houseboy" to the wife of an Army officer stationed in PI. Another relative was conscripted off the reservation to fight for the Confederacy.

Would not touch professionally or personally (as personal actions often bite us professionally). --- The anchor baby can likely qualify for some sort of insurance, depending on locality. Terribly tough moral dilemma for sure. Easy to fall in line with the laws of the land. Tougher to live and let live. While higher in consequence, no different than ignore/report of: unlicensed business, neighbors breaking CCR's or local ordinances, etc. I hear the cost of documents is nearly unchanged since the 80's.

After some reflection, and yet another issue with a customer not remembering their password, I am removing the application level password capability from my software. Why? Because real security is controlling access itself. Lock up the computer. Hardware access control. Operating system access control. Access control keys, recovery keys stored off site under lock and key themselves. In my customer's cases, the complaint will inevitably be when the owner wants to have secure data on a computer they let their employees access. It will be interesting to see the customer feedback, and arguments against. The #1 will likely be "I cannot afford a separate computer", which is tough to sell to me, since a modest computer can be had for much less than a year of data breach insurance. Plus the number of customers who install a "second" copy on a different computer for "travel, home use, etc.". One good point was to add 2FA. But that comes at a cost (internet access at all times, and a cost per access), which is still fallible (email spoofing, stolen phone number, lost, stolen, or borrowed phones). --- When I added the application level password, we were in the days of Windows 3.1, and there was no real security in the hardware and OS, and most did not want to pay for the access control applications of the end of the last century. Now, it is tough to get a computer without hardware control and the OS having access control as well.

Just like the AV industry. AV software can only protect you from known issues, which you should never subject yourself to anyway. Their WAG methods only serve to annoy you with "false positives" and to sell their services. Or the extended "warranty" industry. Had I thought/bothered to investigate the creator of the document referenced, I would have dismissed it as puffery, unless I could back it up elsewhere. But, RC issues are a constant PITA for anyone who has to deal with the know-it-all owner/shareholder type or their "friend" who keeps telling them to take no wages.

This is the one I hear as the prime excuse. Nothing left to pay myself. But inevitably, they take distributions in some manner, such as expense reimbursement, medical insurance, car lease, etc. Some just cannot grasp they have to pay themselves wages at least min wage for all time worked, overtime when required, THEN, if there is anything left, other things can be paid. I try to remind that they must treat themselves the same as a stranger employee, to deaf ears. If there really is no money coming in, then they can pay themselves as a payable, equity, or whatever their accountant prefers. Not that I do tax returns for others. It comes up when someone asks me how to create a one off check for the prior year, or an end of year check to cover wages or to make withholding.

13! clients with sketchy shareholder(s)? A pattern which should be penalized imo. It is not hard to see what comps are with a novice online search. Or even something like the salary exempt (the assistant manager scam threshold) or some reasonable multiple of min wage x X #40 hour weeks per year. For me, I always pose the question to the shareholder to prove out why they should not be aiming for SS limit wages each year before taking a dist. Those who are scamming RC are not likely setting up a retirement plan which beats SS when considering all SS benefits (spouse, children, disability, survivors, SSDI for disabled child).

Access to the stored data is a k own risk. The safety is in self encrypting before storing the data. Some of the backup companies claim they encrypt with no access to the key, but just in case, self encrypt.

User count has no correlation to safety. In fact, the more popular a storage method is, the more likely the baddies and script kiddies are looking at it.

Automation issues. Sometimes the listed mailing info does not match what is in the usps system. Zip+4 sometimes help, especially if it is a one stop zip+4. Then the machines can ignore the rest of the address.

When I looked at the form, the tp does not have to include documentation. Jurat is enough. Have not looked to see if the for mom has been updated. Bought an eligible ev in feb. The credit is lot new, just revised for rules.

The years of tax returns they signed.

Do nothing until given something which shows “new” share allocation? The clients had years to show something other than the 100%. Now that they are not cooperating, with having likely two persons to make the decision, and not agreeing, a court will have to decide.

Likely true. But, the current hardware security, including bitlocker and similar, when used, is darn good enough for normal use.

Indeed. The subject wage is high enough, raises in the limit are just grabbing at the non regular employee.

And those who need Ssdi who under paid. I was asked today about how little RC someone could report. I asked them how little they wanted to leave their family of something awful happened. Yes, some may beat ss in earnings, but not many I suspect and certainly not at the first part of their career where their family is most at risk.

Self encrypt the data before upload is also a good step. Then, if the storage itself is accessed, your data remains unusable unless someone also breaks your encryption. Try to be just a little more secure than your neighbors and the baddies will pass you for the easy score.