Medlin Software, Dennis

Unless required to mask, show. It is the one annual shot the recipient has to make sure the amount is reported correctly. Same for W2 forms...

I don;t know the software you refer to. In general, it is better practice to keep HR and payroll separate. Yes, even if the HR person is the payroll person as well. Payroll does not need to know all details of employment, such as performance reviews. HR does not need to know the W4 details, garnishment details (unless the company considers garnishments beyond one as a reason for dismissal), etc. HR should direct PR to update the rate, but PR does not need to track beyond what is needed for calculation. NOTE: There should be a policy that rate changes are always at start of pay period to avoid complicating calculations more than needed. (Even for minimum wage increases in my opinion.)

There are still lenders who want pay stubs and statements from employers, although neither does anything for the employer or employee. Lenders do not really "count" stubs, statements, or phone calls from employers. They are just collecting as much as they can. If the loan goes bad, they have a larger pool to try to collect from. I suggest employers say nothing without a court order. Employees have bank statements and tax returns to prove income. If an employee begs and pleads for some statement from an employer, the employer could say the employee has been working since X, and there are no pending dismissal actions. I would not speculate about tomorrow, unless the employee is under contract. I imagine similar gets asked from tax preparers, how long have you been doing the return, do the numbers match, etc.

I go with deal only with the customer who I can charge, or who has already paid me. The one exception is a court order. Dealing with a third party will cost me money (at the least). I have many messages (when I did not ask who I am responding to) of a computer "expert" who was trying to help someone. Rarely ended well. The third party can always hang me out for the expert's cost, for the failure to fix, for the delay in fixing, etc. The most common is when an "expert" re-formats a drive, then asks me how to get data (which they failed to backup before the reformat). If I an not speaking directly with my customer, I have no way of controlling what the customer is told, and I have not seen a case where the the "expert" took responsibility.

I remember Woolworth's, and many other things my kids scoff at... Cash payroll has a fixed cost you can easily estimate. X hours to prepare, no unexpected later costs likely. Non-cash payroll can always have a "later" unexpected expense, impossible to control. Just replacing genuine lost checks costs money, let alone HDC issues, issues with a second party getting the funds, and so on. DD is probably the cleanest as you primarily have to worry about a disgruntled co account owner. There can be other issues you pay to "defend", but probably rare enough to not worry about. Enough with non-positive for me today, on to good things! My h e double hockey sticks week is 2.5 hours from being over. Monday won't be fun, but it will be easier. I may sit in the RV and work from there, just to pretend I am on the road somewhere! Business remains good, and most customers are friendly, Happy and healthy wishes to all...

It is a legal term. In my example, the check cashing place has a properly endorsed check, no hint of fraud, and you have to honor it. Stop payment, loss claim, does not matter. You have to deal with the employee, and probably, at least at first, have to pay the employee as well as the check cashing place. Your recourse is only with the person the check was made out to... The third party gets PAID no matter what, if it meets the due course rules (and in practice, even if it does not, since it is likely cheaper to pay than to fight). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-302 Likely examples and explanations by online search. Those that work in large payroll offices are familiar with this, as given enough volume and time, they will see it. Came up for me many years ago when a payroll check was :"washed". The party who got the "washed" check could have easily claimed the check met the HiDC rules. Thankfully, was only for someone I was preparing payroll for. The employer ended up paying both the employee (who must have lost the check) as well as the recipient of the washed check. It was a business with high turnover, and the employee turned over shortly after - I have no idea why... I did get to see the washed check. it was done very well. Lost "art" now, since anyone can print checks as long as they have a valid routing and account number. No more "Catch Me if You Can". Cash is the only way to safely pay employees - safely meaning no later risk of having to pay twice assuming some sort of valid proof of receipt is collected. There are still some who choose this method, and I have not seen any locality where cash is not allowed. If I were back in the days where I was paying lower paid employees with fair turnover, with my current knowledge, it would be cash payouts for me. (Secondary reason, the local officials would likely give me a concealed carry permit again, with cash carrying being the reason).

DD can be handy, but just hope if not the sole account of the employee, there is never a dispute with the others who have access to the account. The law is somewhat grey, say if the non-employee party takes the funds, and the employee says they never got the funds. You may find yourself paying twice, and resorting to checks again. (It has and does happen). Checks can have the same issue. Employee goes to a check cashing place (for instance) which gets the holder in due course issue involved. Employee then says the check was lost. You likely have to pay both as it is the cheaper way to go. One other, of the top of my head, is when an employee wants you to act as their money manager, depositing into multiple accounts. Opens up the issue of access of other parties, and doubling the cost and trouble should the deposit go awry (it happens too). Just another cost of being an employer... As I sit in CA where another year goes by while our elected officials refuse to alter our UI system and actually fund it from normal contributions. Instead, they let the feds "garnish" surviving employers at end of year. It is all about avoiding their next election opponent being able to put out a mailer saying the incumbent raised employer taxes (since the electorate does not understand or care what actually is happening).

DD is always an interesting topic. In many (most?) cases, it is not easier or cheaper for the employer. It does keep employees from taking time during work to deposit. Had a conversation with a person from a credit union, new to our software, who could not find anyone at their own office who knew how to handle ACH. The other "rub" is many bank's/CU's have some sort of payroll product they offer, which they likely get more money (commission and probably sign up bonus). With the change in check processing, there is little, and sometimes no delay, in accessing funds by check compared to before all went electronic. Especially with deposit by phone app.

While frustrating, this one is a piece of cake. A few years back, a former customer was on trial for tax fraud. (IIIRC, was filing using inappropriate items, such as EITC, and was keeping the extra. I think they were taking advantage of folks not native to the US, with little education or experience. Was making sure they got something "back" from his pocket, but had their refund deposited in an account he controlled!) Phone subpoena from the IRS for us. (Was actually not bad, once we explained our business.) The problem was of course, this person again IIRC, was proving there is no fool like someone defending themselves in court, saw we had to make a statement, and made threats against me and my family if we cooperated. Forwarded that information up the chain. The person was convicted and will be in the care of us (via Uncle Sam) for quite some time. Had another who was running a series of filling stations. Would skip out on paying any withholding, UI, etc, then "go out of business" and start up as a new entity AT THE SAME LOCATIONS. We figured it out on our end and refused to do business with them, and after a year or so after we figured it out, the government caught up as well, deposing us along the way (to see if they could hook us into the liability chain, deep pockets lose and all that). F. Gump was a GENIUS.

Ugh. Fired has to mean fired. Quit has to mean quit Former customer who went on a rant, with profanities and threats to sue if we ever contacted them again, asked to order again. They are now livid because I am not replying, since they stated if I replied I would be sued. I am twisted enough to sort of laugh, but not twisted enough to feel sad some people act like they are. The impetus was this person was reselling their software license to others, and was caught (by one of their clients who contacted me for assistance). Our former customer had to deal with at least one unhappy client of theirs, when I refused to assist - directing them back to the person who improperly took money fro them for a license they had no permission to sell. Today's messages from them started with asking to order again, trying to blame a former employee, then dropped back to the same vile stuff that got them fired in the first place. All messages came from the same email address, so I doubt the person really had an employee acting without their knowledge, since the email address is personal in nature, not a business account or name. The firing consisted of a letter saying we were no longer doing business with them, and a full refund for their most recent order. I suspect the issue today is now that the new year is here, their ill gotten license is no longer working for them, nor for the unsuspecting folks who were duped by them.

mmm yuck. I get asked to discuss vehicle use as well. (Umpire avocation.) Some say a (magical) person told them all miles to and from games is deductible. They also say all clothes and gear are as well. Both are incorrect if one wants to be accurate. For us umpires types (not all details are included for length, I suspect you all understand) unless we are very careful, and have another job location, we are merely commuting to and from games. Not all gear is deductible either, such as socks can be worn for other uses, even though the ones we prefer for games are $20 or more... same for wicking undershirts we like to wear. Now the $400 plus lid I put my melon in is deductible (and the best I can buy at any price) since I cannot really wear it for other uses, and I replace it after every good hit. I only have the one melon... We spend a large amount of "training" time on this issue, over a pittance of taxable income... I break even at best, given proper deductions, and I take a large number of games. Well, I actually lose, as my SWMBO of 31 years and counting gets my gross umpire pay, and I have to pay my expenses myself! It is still a great deal for me, since I get to work some great games at great parks, sometimes with one of our sons, and run around like I was still young. I have promised SWMBO to stop if I am "that guy" who cannot get where I need to be, or age 70, whichever comes first , or if I get hit in the melon and have any concussion symptoms. (Thank you for this forum. it is a nice break from my day gig, which is crazy for the next few weeks. It is my "April 15" and "October 15" rolled into a few days. Not even my dogs will come into my office this week.)

Cannot stress enough not to feed power back. It can kill someone. If power outages are annoying, then an auto switch generator is the way to go. If not annoying enough to spend on automatic transfer and permanent generator, then a portable is fine. Even for a week in '86, I was able to run a donut shop on one small generator. Home is just as easy, when you realize how little really needs power at a single time. The real secret is to have a generator in advance, and to test it once a quarter. Hard to get a generator when many are looking at the same time. A $300-$400 portable generator and about $50 in two good extension cords will run almost any household enough to keep lit, warm, and fed - including any home medical needs. A decent permanent gen is probably $5k without installation. The 8 to 12k installed sounds about right, new or old. Just paying an electrician to permit (getting permit, getting inspection) is at least five hours of their time... For that amount, my outages would have to be several times a year for weeks at a time, which would likely only be in a rural place I could not live in since it probably would not have high speed internet at a price I could stomach.

Tom, I get it. I might even be inclined to do what you are doing, provided I had some written documentation allowing me to do so (a notarized letter from the owner/employer might do it). The end result is probably the same, the road to get there is where it gets sticky, and if called on to prove out, will get stickier. All "defense" is a loss since defense is rarely free or reimbursed. I am just too far along in career and life to take the same chances as when younger/newer. A nod from an owner/employer they want me to withhold or do something which I cannot back up via the regulations, without documentation stating I was forced to do so against my advice, and I am not doing it. Notice 2008-1 (IRS) was clear about what needed to be done, and why, and it does not say to alter a paycheck, to withhold taxes, or to alter a 940 or 941. It only covers including the amount in certain places on a W2. I could avoid answering a large number similar emails each year if there were updated instructions from the IRS (to me, 208-1 is clear, but not all agree). Unfortunately, there is no reason for the IRS to do so. The common question I get is "someone" told my customer it has to be wages, and has to show up on a 941 and 940, and that the 941 forms MUST equal the W3 (which are all incorrect as best I can tell, and I am willing to be shown anything to the contrary, since I cannot find such information myself). Smart? Well if you consider the school of hard knocks, plus knowing how to use a search engine, as smart, sure, I can usually find what I am looking for even if not what I was expecting to find. The real smart part, as I have learned along the way, is first realizing I could be wrong, and then to remain open to that possibility. After several years of my position on the shareholder insurance, no one has been able to show me anything contrary, but I am still looking and asking... I did not even want to add the ability to handle the shareholder insurance when 2008-1 came out, since it is something which cannot be tracked through a paycheck. But, too many customers are 2% shareholders, so I had no choice. I tried to find logic to allow it to be part of a paycheck, and am still looking. I really do not like untraceable "adjustments" - since I will eventually take the heat when a customer asks why a W2 has an amount which was not part of paychecks when they forget the reason themselves, and insist they did not make the adjustment.

Not my fight... see my reference to arguing in a post from yesterday. But, I cannot resist... your software provider is acting incorrectly. Adding the amount to a paycheck is done to allow the software provider to create a proper W2 without having to program the proper way. But, the problem is, it causes inaccurate paychecks and paycheck records. At best, they jump through some programming hoops to show the "amount" as income, and somehow not tax it for any purpose. Those hoops are much more complicated than allowing a dollar entry which only affects the W2. For me, we allow the amount to be set on the employee's record, and read the record when creating the W2. That way, no one has to FUDGE a paycheck. Unless the software provider is also providing tax advice, and taking on the liability for their advice, their advice has no more value than something :the internet says". I suspect the advice holds as much water as calling the IRS and getting advice from whomever answers the phone. (The "whomever answers the phone" is something I have come up against several times in several scenarios.) To end with a positive, one state WH office had posted tables, but no calculations for 2017. Useless for most. I asked what was up, and they not only replied, they updated their web site withing minutes. Sometimes you can reach someone who can do something, and even better, has the common sense to take the action. They could not post the calculations, but added a statement that using the 2016 calculations was fine for a short time, since any change was minimal. (The problem is there appears to be no change at the no allowance level - the raw rates - but something is definitely funky about the allowance columns.)

P.S. With payroll, no good deed goes unpunished. Increase WH to save the employee from penalties? The employee may make their own deposit, then gripe at you for what you did. Also sets you up for personal liability since you exercised personal control over the WH amount, instead of blindly following the W4 and Pub 15 instructions/calculations. Adding exposure for doing more or less than required is not wise.

Careful. (Sorry, I was just reading a list of common payroll issues, which triggered the ones I deal with almost daily.) You should not change withholding from what is calculated using the parameters of the most recent valid W4 form. Nor should you be showing the 2% shareholder insurance on a paycheck. The reporting of the 2% shareholder insurance is directed for ONLY the W2 form. There is no directions (which I have ever seen) saying to alter a paycheck or a 941. Now, many will argue the 941 MUST be altered so the 941 totals match the W3, but that is false. 941's do not have to match the W3... they can, and usually will, but it is not required, with some of the exceptions listed in the instructions. When they do not match, the only requirement is to keep documentation showing why they do not match. The IRS bulletin requiring the W2 adjustment for shareholder insurance says nothing about altering paychecks or 941 forms, or 940 forms. Keep in mind, the reason for reporting shareholder insurance on the W2 is to try to catch double dipping. Nothing more, nothing less. Many ignore my advice, as well as the actual reporting directions, so I have "given up" the "fight", but my information is still correct until proven otherwise. The other OFTEN missed complication for shareholder insurance is ACA. Many fail to heed the rule that the owner/employee must have coverage through a qualified ACA group plan when anyone other than the owner/employee (a few rare exceptions, such as for a spouse) is being provided or compensated for health coverage. Not ACA compliant? The health insurance payments are simply taxable income to all. Not ACA compliant means no shareholder reporting is allowed. ACA compliant group plan can still be confusing as the company is still paying for the owner insurance through the compliant group plan, but many say it still must be reported via the shareholder W2 changes required by the old IRS bulletin. (Probably not harmful to do so.) Having two "rules" interact this way is not unusual, but certainly is complicated. One other item I too often see is an owner/employee who fails the reasonable compensation issue, such as paying themselves randomly, quarterly, or annually. Employees, even owner/employees, must be paid at least as often as the state requires, and a reasonable amount for the time worked. Some states have no frequency rules, but I used to recommend paying at least monthly, to avoid the IRS claiming tax shifting. I have given up on this one as well, since the odds of getting caught are not great, and those that do get caught do not share the news.

I'd say when you are done, be done, no matter what. No communication at all. Jack's advice to return all data is great (keep a copy in case you are dragged to court or something along those lines). No response from you means no added fuel. (Hard learned lesson.) I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. George Bernard Shaw Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgebern137450.html "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw

I gave up on the batteries. Seemed like they were always worn out when needed. Generator for me... One cord to power office items, one to swap among refrigerators and heater. Also had an outage yesterday. Was the kind when you know it is not quick since it did not try to self reset. Had the gen up in minutes, although I need to clean the garage so the cords are neater... and with the gen. (Have a rolling storage crate I picked up which will now hold all.) For me, I have enough backups I do not worry about what I might lose when the power goes out. At most, a few minutes of work to redo, but usually none to redo (save often)

The part that raises my attention is "getting the computer back" and getting something from opening your browser. Why was your browser set to a bad default/home page? That is something the security people should have checked, and should be monitoring. Home page hijack is not a new issue... I am not saying the security folks you are using are bad, but that this should have been caught in advance. Ask them how it happened and how they will prevent it in the future.

Add external backups. One to keep in your desk, one to keep at home, one to keep in another secure location. More in separate locations as needed for your comfort level. And just as important, do a test disaster recovery at least once a year to make sure you really can restore from a backup, even on a new computer. This includes not only restoring from your backup, but reinstalling needed software. If you do not test the process, you will undoubtedly find gaps in the needed information/knowledge. Do not rely on a computer "expert" for this process. It MUST be you. YOU are the only one who really knows what you will need. Example. Customer had a computer failure. Sent drive off to a high dollar recovery service. Waited. Got a drive back with whatever was able to be recovered. There were no instructions showing how to use what was recovered, so the person, so far, has not been able to make proper use of the recovered information. Could be what was needed was not actually recovered at all. A large amount of time and money spent with no results. The time and expense was well over what it would have cost to hire someone to recreate the missing data. Only YOU can prevent data loss...

8809 is clear it does not extend the date to recipients, so unless there is another form...

I get asked to create Apple compatible software. Same deal. If your client wants to pay for your time and materials to become competent in that area, great, but I bet your time is worth too much with the income generation you already do, and your leisure time value. I have yet to get any takers for even .001 of what it would cost to develop an Apple version of our software...

The only protection is the grey matter you have. No software can protect you. Period. Software can make a little easier should you forget safe practices, but software fails miserably at guessing at future threats, and fails often in accuracy. The worst part is "security" software makes some feel protected and they do things they should not. This is coupled with "security" software falsely flagging safe items as unsafe, making the user disable the "security" software, which proves the futility of relying on software for security. If we would go back to reading emails in text only, and not html, email would be incredibly safer. Attachments you were expecting should be saved, scanned (if you believe in such actions), then opened.

Personally: Install files can be digitally signed, or not signed. It is, in theory, a way to show the file was not altered from upload. Signing used to prevent an on screen message saying the file could not be identified, now a message is shown either way. Since MANY do not want to pay for the digital certificate, many files, and safe ones, are not signed, making the "security" of a signed file moot. Since the old certificate system is known to be suspect, dual signing a file is not a good option. Nefarious folks can get a digital certificate too, so the signing is not all that valuable. Also, the signing code was changed to something more secure. If using an old browser, the old browser cannot recognize the current certificate, causing more messages. For business purposes, one should not be using an old OS or browser, but it happens. Some simply do not feel staying current by spending a few hundred dollars is worth it. I even hear from business people saying they cannot afford a new computer every three or four years. Then, there are the "security" programs which take money to protect the user from themselves. They fail miserably, with a large number of false positives, to a point where one has to know how to disable the "security" to install programs they want to. If the "security" program has to be disabled, it is not worth using. (The culprit is not catching known issues, it is when the "security" program is set to guess at some problem which has never existed. Guessing wrong actually makes the "security" vendor more money, since it appears they are doing something to keep you safe. In other words, the "security" vendors have a negative incentive to be accurate.) So, our files are not nefarious, and are digitally signed. Using Virustotal, they are shown as clean as well, other the random false positive of a few really sloppy "security" software vendors. Virustotal is a great resource, since it checks a file against ~60 "security" vendors. There are folks who never update their "security" software, so while the "security" vendor's current status is clean, the old non updated program shows an issue. I get a call that our software is dangerous. There are "security" programs which will download a file, then delete it, without forcing the user to make a choice, or even warn them. I then get a call saying our download does not work. With XP and Vista, and.or a non current browser, our file does not appear to be signed, since the old OS/browser cannot read the new safer signature, which is another call. From the OP "identity is unknown and it may harm your computer", the implication is the file is not signed at all, or the OP is using an outdated OS or browser. It also does not imply the OP cannot ignore or skip past the warning, since it says "may". That is typical of an unsigned file, or an old OS/browser. If they did have some sort of certificate issue, then there likely would be more reports of an issue. I can only guess, since I am not ATX, nor have I seen an image of the actual message.

Post an image of the error message. Could be ab over zealous "security" software setting. Could be the setup file is not signed by the creator, and the message is simply a warning. "Security" programs have a financial interest in reminding you they are "saving" you from harm. They have no incentive to actually be accurate. If you are the one initiating the installation, from a vendor you trust, turn off the security software and install.