|
What The Fucktrain posted:I apologize if this is too specific for this thread, but what sort of laws or legal precedents and such are there for the validity of wills if the person writing them are under the influence of anti-psychotics (Zyprexa, which is from what I can gather rather controversial and strong, especially since in this case the person did not exhibit signs of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.) Obviously I'm not a lawyer myself but I know in a will you must be of sound mind and body and I don't think of someone on fairly strong anti-psychotics as of sound mind. As a general matter (i.e., not state-specific), the threshold for "of sound mind" is very, very low. The usual inquiries look to things like: Is the Testator (T) capable of understanding the business in which he is engaged? (Is T capable of understanding he's making a will, or does he believe he's purchasing real estate on the moon?) Is T capable of forming a plan of distribution? (W to X, Y to Z) And so forth. It's worth mentioning that insane delusions are not a bar to testamentary capacity, so long as the delusion does not directly impact the will. T can believe he's Czar of All the Russias and receiving messages from Jupiter, but so long as he's capable of saying "I want my kid to get all my property," it's not a bar to a valid will.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
Alaemon posted:As a general matter (i.e., not state-specific), the threshold for "of sound mind" is Be careful with this, in our state although insane delusions are not considered under testamentary capacity they are a valid challenge in and of themselves. Of course, you have to prove that the ONLY factor in getting written out of the will was the insane delusion. This is hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 07:07
|
|
|
Oops, I didn't realize insane delusions were a state-specific issue. I started off talking about Uniform Probate Code stuff and wandered off-track. Thanks for the catch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 07:39
|
|
|
Basically, in practical terms you want to substitute "Is he capable at any point of being semi-lucid" for "is he of sound mind". It's much closer to the actual question at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 15:52
|
|
|
What The Fucktrain posted:I apologize if this is too specific for this thread, but what sort of laws or legal precedents and such are there for the validity of wills if the person writing them are under the influence of anti-psychotics (Zyprexa, which is from what I can gather rather controversial and strong, especially since in this case the person did not exhibit signs of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.) Obviously I'm not a lawyer myself but I know in a will you must be of sound mind and body and I don't think of someone on fairly strong anti-psychotics as of sound mind. As others have already said, the standard for testamentary capacity is pretty easy to meet. A person can be competent on Monday, incompetent on Tuesday, and competent again on Wednesday. I know of at least one instance in which a person was competent in the morning of every day but in the evening would be incompetent. As SWATJester said, the question is whether the person making the will was competent at that moment. As an estate planner, if I were advising a client who regularly took strong anti-psychotic drugs, I would be very aware of the potential suit for lack of capacity. I would probably take precautions to ensure that the client A) has capacity and B) that I later provide evidence of that capacity. I imagine that the lawyer in your situation has probably thought about this. You could definitely ask a local lawyer whether they'd be interested in helping you challenge the validity of the will, but I doubt it is worthwhile. A testator who creates a will while under the influence of drugs (of any kind) is definitely sending a yellow flag, but the drug use alone does not bar testamentary capacity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
Part of Everything posted:I live in Ontario, Canada. I've been renting an apartment for the last 5 years. When I first signed the lease, it stated that utilities were all-inclusive, with no extenuating circumstances listed. What you described would contravene the residential tenancies act in my neck of the woods. I am not familiar with Ontario's, but I imagine it is functionally similar. I took a glance at it here. this would seem to apply to your case. There may be a residential tenancies office you can call at the government who can advise you, but just at a glance I don't think they have any right to demand the additional fee. Disputing the fee does not give them grounds to evict you; if it works there how it does here, they would send you a eviction notice for nonpayment of rent, you would send back a dispute letter, and then they would have to take you to provincial court or a residential tenancies dispute office to explain why they should get the additional money from you. I do not live in Ontario and actually kind of hate it so take this all with a grain of salt
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:I am not your lawyer, we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and you should not rely upon this as legal advice. For informational purposes only, I believe you are reading the statute correctly, and your landlord is attempting to impose obligations upon you which are prohibited by statute. If I were advising you, I would tell you that if your landlord sued you, that you should hire a lawyer (if you can afford to do so) to file a summary judgment motion asking the court to take note of 5321.04 and .06 and dismiss the case. If you can't hire a lawyer, then ANSWER THE COMPLAINT (so that the landlord does not get a default judgment against you) then make the same argument that you made here to the judge. You should win, but there are no guarantees in court, so don't bank on it. Thank you for this. If he sues me in civil court I will Answer the complaint and follow your advice (I believe the limit is 2500-3000 in damages). If he actually hires a lawyer and sues me in non civil court I can afford to hire a lawyer. He has not sued me yet I just know its probably 50-50. I was the first person this gentleman ever rented too so he is not very experienced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 22:00
|
|
|
kingfet posted:Thank you for this. If he sues me in civil court I will Answer the complaint and follow your advice (I believe the limit is 2500-3000 in damages). If he actually hires a lawyer and sues me in non civil court I can afford to hire a lawyer. He has not sued me yet I just know its probably 50-50. I was the first person this gentleman ever rented too so he is not very experienced. Just so we're clear, if he hires a lawyer and sues you it will be in civil court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Just so we're clear, if he hires a lawyer and sues you it will be in civil court. I am sorry I meant small claims court. If he hires a lawyer I will of course and can afford to hire one. The main reason I did not purchase the house is due to the economy collapse and him refusing to lower his asking price. Similar houses in better condition a couple lots away were selling twenty percent lower than his price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Zyprexa is controversial for causing obesity and diabetes, not for screwing with your mind. Its actually not a particularly powerful atypical, so it gets used for a lot of off label stuff, especially anxiety. You're thinking of typical antipsychotics like haldol or thorazine. Are you sure about this? My mother is a registered nurse and knew it was an anti-psychotic and from what I can see it is used for just schizophrenia and bipolar disorder related instances. And I would consider something that is used to control either or those, especially the former, rather strong compared to anxiety medication. I'm not sure about the obesity/diabetes thing but I did see something dealing with an increased risk of stroke, which he had already suffered from before getting the prescription and subsequently died from another a few years later. Alaemon posted:As a general matter (i.e., not state-specific), the threshold for "of sound mind" is very, very low. Well, this instance is just what I caught from hearing a few relatives discussing it and having a fresh set of ears so to speak. This is only one part of it, others including that, unless they are mistaken, the last will (this was after he had the stroke that eventually led to his death) was actually not probated. That plus the fact all of his previous wills, even after he had divorced my grandmother and remarried two other women (obviously at different times) she was always the one left everything to split as she saw fit (she is the only one to have children with him.) I have found a few firms that offer free consultation close by and plan to call/meet up with them. Oh and sorry if I went into too much detail there, just sucks not being able to talk to a lawyer with this all buzzing around in my head. Edit: I guess what I should really ask is if the fact he was on anti-psychotics enough to raise a reasonable amount of concern about what he really wanted to write in his will, as it hadn't changed much for the previous 20 some years? Karl Sharks fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
What The Fucktrain posted:Are you sure about this? My mother is a registered nurse and knew it was an anti-psychotic and from what I can see it is used for just schizophrenia and bipolar disorder related instances. And I would consider something that is used to control either or those, especially the former, rather strong compared to anxiety medication. I'm not sure about the obesity/diabetes thing but I did see something dealing with an increased risk of stroke, which he had already suffered from before getting the prescription and subsequently died from another a few years later. Your idea of what makes a medication "strong" or what is a "strong" medication is strange and uneducated. Anxiety is not depression nor schizophrenia, although sometimes the disorders tend to show up in the same patients. Major depressive disorders, severe anxiety, and schizophrenia are not difficult to treat because the patient isn't getting a "strong" enough medication, they're difficult to treat because they require talk therapy and a patient with the ability and willingness to stick to treatment, not to mention that all disorders are not entirely understood. Zyprexa is not "stronger" than say Xanax. It is a different medication that works in a different way for a different disorder. Zyprexa has off-label uses that don't only include the ones the FDA has approved it for; that's the definition of off-label. I have no idea about the law you're asking about but you need to educate yourself on these drugs if you're going to insist they make a difference in your case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
What The Fucktrain posted:Edit: I guess what I should really ask is if the fact he was on anti-psychotics enough to raise a reasonable amount of concern about what he really wanted to write in his will, as it hadn't changed much for the previous 20 some years? Anti-psychotics are not known to cause delusions or loss of rational capacity, and Zyprexa is a common drug which is sometimes prescribed for anxiety. So no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
Trillian posted:Anti-psychotics are not known to cause delusions or loss of rational capacity Usually the opposite in fact
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
Could the use of antipsychotics be used to prove a preexisting mental issue? They'd have to prove the drugs themselves actually weren't working effectively, changing the issue from the drugs to the condition requiring their use. (ianal, just makes some sort of halfassed sense)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 02:32
|
|
|
I've posted about my problem in a much earlier stage in a previous thread, but here I am now with another question. First, I'm in Ohio. The case was going to be handled by the state's Personnel Board of Review. Shortly before the hearing, my lawyer told me that my situation was pretty bad, and that I should take a settlement offered by the opposing side. After about a day or two's thought (I didn't have much time to decide), I decided he was right and that we'd take the settlement. The hearing got pushed back again so there'd be time for a settlement, the opposing attorney drafted a couple of contracts, and my lawyer sent them along to me. Here's where things stand now: I signed my copy and delivered it to my lawyer. It has been almost a month, and the opposition has not done the same. I'm beginning to wonder if this was just a stall tactic by the opposition (not necessarily the lawyer, but the people I'm actually bringing the suit against). My lawyer still seems to think they're acting on good faith, but I've gotten paranoid -- it doesn't take this long to get signatures from people who've allegedly already agreed to the text of the settlement. Is it too late to rescind my signature on the contract if the opposition has failed to sign after nearly a month?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could the use of antipsychotics be used to prove a preexisting mental issue? They'd have to prove the drugs themselves actually weren't working effectively, changing the issue from the drugs to the condition requiring their use. Not certain, as they could be prescribed offlabel for another condition. Also depending on the type of claim you are alleging, they might be barred from admissibility under the subsequent remedial measures rule.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 07:29
|
|
|
daveincognito posted:I've posted about my problem in a much earlier stage in a previous thread, but here I am now with another question. Let me just point out that it's not necessarily an unreasonably long time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Let me just point out that it's not necessarily an unreasonably long time. There are two problems: I can't get another job until this is sorted out, and the next hearing is scheduled for July. I'm dealing with a short timeframe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 07:59
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Let me just point out that it's not necessarily an unreasonably long time. e: Daveincognito - Going back through your post history, not to be a dick or anything but maybe you should use this time to get your problems sorted out instead of worrying about trying to get right back out there and find another job. Do you have family/friends/anyone who can help you out? The Rokstar fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Jun 7, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 08:00
|
|
|
daveincognito posted:There are two problems: I can't get another job until this is sorted out, and the next hearing is scheduled for July. I'm dealing with a short timeframe. How will rescinding the deal speed anything up? Instead of settling the case before the hearing, you're virtually guaranteed to have to wait for your July hearing date.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 00:57
|
|
|
I read the "Desk Blotter" report from the Tulsa jail sometimes, it's a pdf showing all the new arrivals in jail from the previous day, their pics and municipal or state charges. One thing I've wondered about is on the charges sometimes the charge is suffixed with AFCF. I found out this means "after former conviction of felony" but I wonder does that mean a felony conviction for the same thing? Like a guy today had "Indecent exposure AFCF" does that mean he had a felony indecent exposure before? or just any felony? Vin BioEthanol fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Jun 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 16:19
|
|
|
Wagonburner posted:I read the "Desk Blotter" report from the Tulsa jail sometimes, it's a pdf showing all the new arrivals in jail from the previous day, their pics and municipal or state charges. It's any felony conviction. It's there primarily to increase the punishment range for the new offense, but it also has some bearing on their security level in the jail and where their bond will be set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 22:12
|
|
|
I'm in Ohio and recently one of my facebook friends who works at Kmart posted a status about how she didn't let a black kid buy candy with his food stamps just because she didn't think he should be eating it. Of course this is classist/racist as gently caress but is it illegal if the person receiving assistance is normally allowed to purchase the item?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 19:29
|
|
|
So in Missouri, the law is that a landlord has to give you a bill with all the things they're spending your initial deposit on (if they don't plan on giving it back entirely) within 30 days of the lease ending. My lease ended 32 days ago, I called my landlord about it, she said she hasn't even walked through the apartment to check yet... and she is going to mail me a bill soon. Aren't I supposed to just get the whole $420 back because of the law? Am I reading something wrong? Should I be a huge douchebag or take her to court or whatever? They've made my last 2 years a living hell, and I honestly just want the entire deposit back. If I take legal action, can they try to sue me for things like replacing the 30 year old carpet or whatever else they try to fabricate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
FreshShoez posted:So in Missouri, the law is that a landlord has to give you a bill with all the things they're spending your initial deposit on (if they don't plan on giving it back entirely) within 30 days of the lease ending. My lease ended 32 days ago, I called my landlord about it, she said she hasn't even walked through the apartment to check yet... and she is going to mail me a bill soon. Aren't I supposed to just get the whole $420 back because of the law? Am I reading something wrong? Should I be a huge douchebag or take her to court or whatever? They've made my last 2 years a living hell, and I honestly just want the entire deposit back. If I take legal action, can they try to sue me for things like replacing the 30 year old carpet or whatever else they try to fabricate? You probably don't actually have to go as far as launching legal action. Just write a firmly worded letter to the effect of the fact that you know what the law is and she has missed the period where she is able to deduct from the deposit and that you are demanding return of the deposit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 20:37
|
|
|
frobert blamble posted:I'm in Ohio and recently one of my facebook friends who works at Kmart posted a status about how she didn't let a black kid buy candy with his food stamps just because she didn't think he should be eating it. Of course this is classist/racist as gently caress but is it illegal if the person receiving assistance is normally allowed to purchase the item? Civil Rights Act of 1964 posted:SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof. Title 41, Ohio Revised Code posted:4112.02(G) For any proprietor or any employee, keeper, or manager of a place of public accommodation to deny to any person, except for reasons applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry, the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of the place of public accommodation. Neither provide for criminal punishment in a situation like this. And yes, candy is allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 20:44
|
|
|
I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this question. I'm in Colorado. I have a friend who works in a doctor's office, getting paid under the table. She does this because the doctor was at one time her boyfriend so he set up this deal with her. Now that they don't date, they continue to work together but he withholds her illegally earned money whenever he thinks he is being slighted, etc. Who knows how many of the other people in his office he is loving around with. My question is, can I report this to anyone since I'm not directly involved in any way? And if so, who? I would hate to put my friend out of money, but to be honest she'd likely be better off picking cans out of the garbage. Knowing this doctor, he probably has a lot more shady practices going on. Is there a way to get him audited or something? Thanks law goons. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
Silver String posted:I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this question. I'm in Colorado. I have a friend who works in a doctor's office, getting paid under the table. She does this because the doctor was at one time her boyfriend so he set up this deal with her. Now that they don't date, they continue to work together but he withholds her illegally earned money whenever he thinks he is being slighted, etc. Who knows how many of the other people in his office he is loving around with. You could try writing a letter to the Colorado Board of Medical Examiners, but you'll be stirring up a shitstorm for your friend, no question. Try here: http://www.dora.state.co.us/medical/
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
Silver String posted:I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this question. I'm in Colorado. I have a friend who works in a doctor's office, getting paid under the table. She does this because the doctor was at one time her boyfriend so he set up this deal with her. Now that they don't date, they continue to work together but he withholds her illegally earned money whenever he thinks he is being slighted, etc. Who knows how many of the other people in his office he is loving around with. entris posted:You could try writing a letter to the Colorado Board of Medical Examiners Most importantly IRS, but also Social Security Administration, Medicare, Colorado Dept. of Labor (which covers unfair wage practices (withholding pay) and avoiding Worker's Comp. contributions) entris posted:but you'll be stirring up a shitstorm for your friend, no question. The doc is probably better able to pay all the back taxes and penalties than your friend, so it may hurt her more than him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 05:12
|
|
|
FreshShoez posted:So in Missouri, the law is that a landlord has to give you a bill with all the things they're spending your initial deposit on (if they don't plan on giving it back entirely) within 30 days of the lease ending. My lease ended 32 days ago, I called my landlord about it, she said she hasn't even walked through the apartment to check yet... and she is going to mail me a bill soon. Aren't I supposed to just get the whole $420 back because of the law? Am I reading something wrong? Should I be a huge douchebag or take her to court or whatever? They've made my last 2 years a living hell, and I honestly just want the entire deposit back. If I take legal action, can they try to sue me for things like replacing the 30 year old carpet or whatever else they try to fabricate? Check your statutes, some states let you recover double damages. Your landlord is an idiot and you may get to enforce idiot tax.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
I think some states offer treble damages. So, yeah, check your local laws.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 07:08
|
|
|
This is CA, but I spoke briefly with a lawyer about this issue and he told me that while I'm entitled to triple damages if the landlord is late and won't pay up, I was still responsible for any damage to the place. So the landlord owed me my security deposit back in full, but could also send a bill and expect payment for property damage. Luckily my landlord clearly did not know that and I had no interest in letting them know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 07:56
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:This is CA, but I spoke briefly with a lawyer about this issue and he told me that while I'm entitled to triple damages if the landlord is late and won't pay up, I was still responsible for any damage to the place. So the landlord owed me my security deposit back in full, but could also send a bill and expect payment for property damage. Luckily my landlord clearly did not know that and I had no interest in letting them know. Usually the codes are written so that they have to bill you within a certain period of time after your lease.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Usually the codes are written so that they have to bill you within a certain period of time after your lease. The way the lawyer stated it, it sounded like the only restriction was that the landlord could not use my security deposit to pay for it after 30 days, she would have had to send a bill and make a huge fuss and take me to small claims court instead. Which kind of amounts to the same thing. But it's certainly possible that I am misremembering/misinterpreted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 08:17
|
|
|
Hawkgirl posted:This is CA, but I spoke briefly with a lawyer about this issue and he told me that while I'm entitled to triple damages if the landlord is late and won't pay up, I was still responsible for any damage to the place. So the landlord owed me my security deposit back in full, but could also send a bill and expect payment for property damage. Luckily my landlord clearly did not know that and I had no interest in letting them know. Did you do more than $840 in damages? If not you are probably gonna come out ahead. Again, talk to your local lawyer, he knows Californian "Law" and I do not, but around here you can usually recover for the failure to pay the security deposit in a timely fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 13:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Most importantly IRS, but also Social Security Administration, Medicare, Colorado Dept. of Labor (which covers unfair wage practices (withholding pay) and avoiding Worker's Comp. contributions) OK well I guess I'll leave it alone then. Goddamn that guy is a sleaze though, I wish there was a way to get him busted without hurting her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 15:15
|
|
|
Here's an email I just send her:quote:
Hopefully this gets through to her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
Silver String posted:I'm not sure if this is the right thread for this question. I'm in Colorado. I have a friend who works in a doctor's office, getting paid under the table. She does this because the doctor was at one time her boyfriend so he set up this deal with her. Now that they don't date, they continue to work together but he withholds her illegally earned money whenever he thinks he is being slighted, etc. Who knows how many of the other people in his office he is loving around with. I'd be careful with this, because the doctor can easily gently caress your friend by giving her a 1099 for all of her wages (basically making her an independent contractor) which would require her to pay taxes and all of the social security taxes on her earnings (what you normally have deducted for FICA is half of the tax, the employer pays the other half). I learned this the hard way when I had a job working under the table and my boss did this. Since I obviously didn't claim it on my taxes I got hit with a shitton of interest and penalties, and eventually a $600/month wage garnishment from the IRS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
tishthedish posted:I looked through most of the thread and didn't see anything, so hopefully this questioned hasn't already been addressed. I posted this on May 4th. As an update to the situation, I tried to compromise at (what I thought was fair) $1450. Their estimate was $1228.47, but that didn't include paying the full cost of repairing the bumper. I just want a check for the balance, and the adjustor wouldn't quit talking about where I could get my car fixed. I think I finally got through to her in my last letter, where she offered to add $125 for what they would have paid for me to use a loaner for 5 days, which is how long they estimated it would take to get my car fixed. Now the problem is the medical bills and pain and suffering. They are saying that they will pay up to $500 in medical bills, but aren't they required to pay the full amount? They can't just choose how much to reimburse me for medical bills that directly relate to injuries sustained from the accident. It's really pissing me off that the adjustor is trying to pull this crap on me. She told me that if I had more medical bills, she would "review and consider" them. WTF Also, for pain and suffering, I was offered $750 up front. I didn't take it because it was only three days after the accident that I met up with the adjustor, and I didn't know how long the pain was going to last, or what it would affect. Turns out that I had to spend my entire vacation week in bed in extreme pain, and I was very uncomfortable when I went back to school to do rotations. Now I am only being offered $500. Questions I have: if I accept the offer for the property damage, can I still go to court with them for the medical bills and the bodily injury part? Obviously I REALLY don't want to have to get a lawyer, but gently caress if I'm tired of being walked all over and I'm not going to let this insurance get off with the bare minimum. Is there anything I can say to her that will increase my bodily injury payment without getting a lawyer? If I did get a lawyer, it would have to be in two months from now because I am extremely busy with school and graduating in August (plus studying for my board exam). Would the fact that this would be put off for awhile mean anything to the adjustor, or would it really not matter that this case won't be resolved for at least a few more months? I'm in Texas, by the way. tishthedish fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:07 |
|
|
Offrampmotel posted:I'd be careful with this, because the doctor can easily gently caress your friend by giving her a 1099 for all of her wages (basically making her an independent contractor) which would require her to pay taxes and all of the social security taxes on her earnings (what you normally have deducted for FICA is half of the tax, the employer pays the other half). I learned this the hard way when I had a job working under the table and my boss did this. Since I obviously didn't claim it on my taxes I got hit with a shitton of interest and penalties, and eventually a $600/month wage garnishment from the IRS. It's unlikely she is or you were an independent contractor. Biggest giveaway: an independent contractor doesn't have a 'boss.' The IRS's page on the subject The IRS's old test for employee/independent contractor I think this one is more informative; the new test gives a little more wiggle room, but the basics are unchanged. The first (and only) private firm I worked for tried to pull this crap on me; one of many reasons I'm overjoyed not to be there anymore. P.S. Silver String, in addition to everything else, the doc would also have to answer for not paying your friend's unemployment insurance tax. Here's a list of the stuff he's supposed to be paying for his employees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 13:38
|
|