This gives me yet another good reason to keep BECU[1] as my only bank for any non-trivial amount of money...
it can be a pain if I need an ATM, but I can at least trust that they will generally be on my side.
There is a huge difference between the skills necessary to safely hold your money and setting up HTTPS. I bet you that there are a lot of fraudulent banks that are very good with https, but aren't to be trusted.
The difference is the same as the difference between the skills neccessary to be an ambassador and to wipe your bottom - one is trivial, but is a subset of the other.
In order to safely run an internetbank, there are a thousand of small things that all must be done right. If they can't even set up (and test, and verify, and maintain) https, what makes you think that they can handle 100% of the much more complicated computing security issues without missing something?
I know from living in Seattle that they're a reputable credit union, but the fact that their home page gives me a certificate error is a bad pattern that trains users to ignore scary red messages. (The problem is that the cert is for www.becu.org , not becu.org .)
They do force a redirect on http://becu.org/, but they can't really force a redirect on https://becu.org/, because you would need to accept the mismatched name before you could get the redirect.
Although, I'm surprised they don't have an alternate name, most of the CA's I've worked with recently automatically add the naked domain as an alternate name when you order a cert with www
Presumably because BECU doesn't have a presence in Massachusetts and it would be harder for Mass. to get a levy on an out of state bank account? Op's tax lawyer in the article stated that "Chase Manhattan is not supposed to freeze an out-of-state account like this, and MA knows it. But MA does this because they know they can get away with it."
If you're wondering (like I was) why MA thinks this guy owes anything at all, it's buried in the middle:
"Again, I hadn't lived there or worked there since 2003, but I did own part of a business that was headquartered in MA, and the state was using this fact to harass me for income tax money."
So is the MA tax bill based on the profits of that business, or is the state just using it to say "you should pay all your income tax here"? Regardless, his beef should be with MA rather than the bank. I'd hardly fault Chase for complying with a court order - if crossing a state line made you judgement proof, why wouldn't everyone just run up debts, move one state over, and start fresh?
OP claims "they have not sued me or sent me any sort of court order"
Edit: According to [0] they don't need to. They just send you a notice and if you don't respond in time they take what they want. It's not clear what constitutes responding or how to get the case into a court and out of an administrative process. I don't know about the out-of-state bank thing.
This seems highly unlikely.
I only spent one year of law school in MA, but i distinctly remember that any sort of prejudgment attachment required a court order.
The first part could easily explain it, particularly if the company was an LLC. If you own a stake an LLC, you are liable for the taxes on the profits on your share of the ownership regardless of whether or not you see any of it(at least in GA). Since the author seemed fairly oblivious to this requirement maybe he hadn't paid them since moving out of the state? Since this seems to be from a couple years ago, do anyone have any closure on this situation now?
IIRC, an LLC can either be separately taxed or a pass-through entity; in the latter case, the LLC members each pay taxes on their share of the LLC's taxable income. This is true even if all of the income is retained in the LLC.
Also possible that this could be related to his sale of Ars Technica. Massachusetts imposes its own capital gains tax, and he may have been liable for a significant portion of that, especially given that it sounds like it was MA domiciled. Or maybe not, but there's lots of ways that he could be legitimately liable for MA taxes while living in a different state.
Sounds to me like his beef could be with the Chicago CPA. CPAs are not created equal, and even the big 4 accounting firms make serious mistakes when things get complicated - has happened to me. Usually, when that happens, the CPA is responsible for fixing the problem (paying late fees, filings, etc.), but you're still liable for the underlying tax burden that they may have missed.
In any case, would be nice to know what the resolution was!
> So is the MA tax bill based on the profits of that business, or is the state just using it to say "you should pay all your income tax here"? Regardless, his beef should be with MA rather than the bank.
More to the point, the update makes it clear he doesn't really have a beef with MA: he did owe the taxes.
It's shit like this that makes me want Bitcoin or one of the alternatives to succeed. I don't care if it ends up being worth $10 or $50K, as long as many people use it. The banking system is rotten to the core.
The government will take what it wants. If you have a house, they will take it. If you have a car, they will take it. Bits on a hard drive don't help if you can't hold property. They even got the Swiss banks to cough up American accounts.
If you operate in a system of currency you are agreeing to play by their rules. You don't have to do business in America, you can go anywhere you want. Is it harder? Possibly. Will you be a successful? Maybe not. Learn the system if you are going into business, don't just complain because you "don't like taxes".
That's a great way of getting robbed even without anyone needing to take your money, you would be effectively giving it away.
For example, the closing price exactly one year ago today was $880. Yesterday it was $248. So if you had $20,000 in savings and put them into Bitcoin, you'd have $5,636 now. What a wonderful savings account a 75% loss...
I swear the only reason people keep suggesting Bitcoin as an "investment" is because it is a pyramid scheme and they themselves are already deeply in the red, and see bringing in others as their only saviour.
Strangely enough, almost this exact same thing happened to me.
Apparently I was accountable for my ex-wife's tax bill (for a year in which we were not married) well after our divorce...in a state I never worked in.
They just took it. I happened to have a little in savings, and had just gotten my paycheck the day they took everything...so they got a decent amount (relative to me at least).
Also, once they decide to take your money it's nearly impossible to get it back.
Could someone confirm that in this case using local small credit union would give certain protections in similar cases? i.e. credit union with branches in your home state only vs. having branches in most states like Bank of America or Chase does?
Yeah, some of the state revenue agencies move very quickly. NY claimed to have sent a notice (prior to their rather good online system they have today) and 14 days later they had taken the money.
Recently I've noticed a lot of very small bills originating from adjustments on years-old returns. These are things that probably should be disputed, but they are coming in at $100-$200, which is far less that I'd pay someone to research for even an hour.
Here's my question: if the revenue department is going to make rounding-error level adjustments, why don't they just send me an advance tax bill, with all of the calculations that I can verify, and I'll just pay it?
I've had something similar to this happen with another state agency (not the state in which by business is incorporated). We had opened a tax account in another state as we intended to convert a contractor to an FTE, but we ended up terminating the worker's contract. Time passes, and Chase processes a levy on behalf of a collections agency authorized to collect for the state department of revenue. They had automatically been calculating tax owed for one FTE, even though we had never filed a statement indicating we were withholding. Then fees, interest, penalties, etc. added up and it made for a very bad day or two here.
It took a few calls between us, Chase and the state agency, and a simple form to get the levy order rescinded before Chase fulfilled it (30 days after their receipt, for most such orders). Our funds were released within minutes of calling them to confirm that the state sent them a fax rescinding the levy order.
I've heard numerous horror stories about dealing with Chase on matters like this. I didn't find those stories to be true, in our case. I suspect the author either handled it (one would hope), or closed his tax account and chalked it up to lessons learned (a regrettable, but understandable decision to avoid further anguish and just "be done with it").
Noticed the author's complaint at the end about recovering the funds. No massive legal fees are necessary to recover them if the agency rescinds the levy. Just a fairly simple request for refund. I think he, like many in this situation, got indignant and had a flame-out emotional response. The lack of follow up suggests that it wasn't ultimately as big of a deal as he thought, IMHO.
The author mentions he keeps his money in a foreign bank that I presume the MA department of revenue cannot get at. Does anyone have any recommendations of overseas banks that are easy to open accounts with without travelling to said country.
See my above comment. It was just luck that they didn't get to the Barclays money, and yeah that's probably also because Barclays is foreign that the luck happened. But I wouldn't count on that. If I hadn't moved quickly to hire a good tax lawyer and then contact MA and start working on a resolution, they'd have found and frozen our Barclays assets eventually.
> overseas banks that are easy to open accounts with without travelling to said country.
I think you'll find it very difficult to achieve that with a bank you want to trust your money to; anti-money laundering treaties have cranked up the requirements on banks to verify the identity of new customers.
So random that this has popped up now. I should post an update, but I can do a quick one here. This is resolved, but here are the bullet points of what happened and what I learned:
- All of my assets were not frozen. 99% of our assets are with Barclays, and we just use Chase so that we can have a local checking account. (Barclays doesn't do that in the US.) So everything tied to Chase and our credit cards were frozen because of the tax lien.
- The source of the problem was my former CPA. He just screwed up. He's a nice guy who does a solid business in the decent-sized midwestern city where he's located, but for whatever reason of inattenion and/or lack of good enough training/information, he had me file in the wrong state. He also doesn't have any insurance (not required where he practices), so if MA hadn't been cool about waiving penalties and interest it may not have been possible for me to recover that from him by the time I paid legal fees, etc.
- I got a great MA tax lawyer (Philip S. Olsen, now of Burns and Levinson), and he worked with the Mass. tax authorities to help them understand that I wasn't some seedy tax dodger and that this was the fault of my CPA.
Now, here's what I learned:
- Ask your CPA if he or she has insurance, and for how much. Don't be shy, because this kind of thing could happen to you. And don't think that just because various professionals and bigwigs in town use them, that they're either not going to make a mistake or that they have insurance.
- There is no bank or credit union, no matter how foreign or local, that would not have frozen my assets in response to the merest hint of a request from MA. Every financial institution in the world is going to roll over for a state government like that, and leave you to sort out of if the request was legit or not. There's no place to hide. So Chase isn't actually the bad guy here.
- MA isn't really the bad guy either. The states are strapped for cash, and they're turning over every stone for revenue. What caught my CPA was a wrinkle in the tax law about where to file that for decades many CPAs ignored because the states didn't have the ability to find and go after such things. (MA was claiming that I owed "Massachusetts-sourced income" because Ars Technica LLC was technically headquartered in Malden.) But in today's world of desperate state governments and networked databases, no CPA can afford to be lazy about anything. To their credit, MA let me re-file and did not penalize. I had to pay state taxes twice for that year, though, because IL's books were closed for 2007 and they refused to even consider giving me back the money I erroneously paid them.
- This stuff drags out. While our assets were unfrozen pretty quickly, it was the first week of this month that I finally got a letter from MA telling me that the tax lien was officially lifted and that I'm in the clear.
- There is no statute of limitations on taxes. If they find something from literally 20 years ago, they can load it up with penalties and interest and absolutely crush you. So see the point above about making sure your CPA has a platinum-plated insurance policy.
No idea. I thought of that question right after I posted it, as well. I'm assuming it does, but I should look into that. Like, if he quits paying the premium, does it just go away and then you're still screwed?
I heard somewhere that when you stop living in a certain state (say California in mid 2014) you should still file state tax in California in 2016 to show that you made no income in 2015 in California. This is supposedly a recommended way to end your 'relationship' with the state.
I don't know about that but it helps to ask your CPA (also, get a CPA), and have proof (eg, lease / mortgage, etc) of residency handy. CA once went after me for income I had earned years before I'd ever lived there, and sorting that out was a mess.
> Every financial institution in the world is going to roll over for a state government like that, and leave you to sort out of if the request was legit or not. There’s no place to hide. So Chase isn’t actually the bad guy here.
I don't see the logic here. Everyone does it, so it must not be bad? I don't agree.
70 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 152 ms ] thread[1] https://becu.org
In order to safely run an internetbank, there are a thousand of small things that all must be done right. If they can't even set up (and test, and verify, and maintain) https, what makes you think that they can handle 100% of the much more complicated computing security issues without missing something?
Except you example is false. I see no reason a quadriplegic couldn't serve as an ambassador.
Although, I'm surprised they don't have an alternate name, most of the CA's I've worked with recently automatically add the naked domain as an alternate name when you order a cert with www
"Again, I hadn't lived there or worked there since 2003, but I did own part of a business that was headquartered in MA, and the state was using this fact to harass me for income tax money."
So is the MA tax bill based on the profits of that business, or is the state just using it to say "you should pay all your income tax here"? Regardless, his beef should be with MA rather than the bank. I'd hardly fault Chase for complying with a court order - if crossing a state line made you judgement proof, why wouldn't everyone just run up debts, move one state over, and start fresh?
Edit: According to [0] they don't need to. They just send you a notice and if you don't respond in time they take what they want. It's not clear what constitutes responding or how to get the case into a court and out of an administrative process. I don't know about the out-of-state bank thing.
[0] http://www.mass.gov/dor/businesses/help-and-resources/legal-...
And your scenario doesn't fit here because the 'debt' is from after moving.
Can you explain?
Sounds to me like his beef could be with the Chicago CPA. CPAs are not created equal, and even the big 4 accounting firms make serious mistakes when things get complicated - has happened to me. Usually, when that happens, the CPA is responsible for fixing the problem (paying late fees, filings, etc.), but you're still liable for the underlying tax burden that they may have missed.
In any case, would be nice to know what the resolution was!
More to the point, the update makes it clear he doesn't really have a beef with MA: he did owe the taxes.
Original text is published here: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/chase-just-handed-ove...
(Never mind that if word gets out you will get robbed.)
For example, the closing price exactly one year ago today was $880. Yesterday it was $248. So if you had $20,000 in savings and put them into Bitcoin, you'd have $5,636 now. What a wonderful savings account a 75% loss...
I swear the only reason people keep suggesting Bitcoin as an "investment" is because it is a pyramid scheme and they themselves are already deeply in the red, and see bringing in others as their only saviour.
That, and armed guards are not cheap.
I wonder what else is going on?
Apparently I was accountable for my ex-wife's tax bill (for a year in which we were not married) well after our divorce...in a state I never worked in.
They just took it. I happened to have a little in savings, and had just gotten my paycheck the day they took everything...so they got a decent amount (relative to me at least).
Also, once they decide to take your money it's nearly impossible to get it back.
Recently I've noticed a lot of very small bills originating from adjustments on years-old returns. These are things that probably should be disputed, but they are coming in at $100-$200, which is far less that I'd pay someone to research for even an hour.
Here's my question: if the revenue department is going to make rounding-error level adjustments, why don't they just send me an advance tax bill, with all of the calculations that I can verify, and I'll just pay it?
It took a few calls between us, Chase and the state agency, and a simple form to get the levy order rescinded before Chase fulfilled it (30 days after their receipt, for most such orders). Our funds were released within minutes of calling them to confirm that the state sent them a fax rescinding the levy order.
I've heard numerous horror stories about dealing with Chase on matters like this. I didn't find those stories to be true, in our case. I suspect the author either handled it (one would hope), or closed his tax account and chalked it up to lessons learned (a regrettable, but understandable decision to avoid further anguish and just "be done with it").
I think you'll find it very difficult to achieve that with a bank you want to trust your money to; anti-money laundering treaties have cranked up the requirements on banks to verify the identity of new customers.
- All of my assets were not frozen. 99% of our assets are with Barclays, and we just use Chase so that we can have a local checking account. (Barclays doesn't do that in the US.) So everything tied to Chase and our credit cards were frozen because of the tax lien.
- The source of the problem was my former CPA. He just screwed up. He's a nice guy who does a solid business in the decent-sized midwestern city where he's located, but for whatever reason of inattenion and/or lack of good enough training/information, he had me file in the wrong state. He also doesn't have any insurance (not required where he practices), so if MA hadn't been cool about waiving penalties and interest it may not have been possible for me to recover that from him by the time I paid legal fees, etc.
- I got a great MA tax lawyer (Philip S. Olsen, now of Burns and Levinson), and he worked with the Mass. tax authorities to help them understand that I wasn't some seedy tax dodger and that this was the fault of my CPA.
Now, here's what I learned:
- Ask your CPA if he or she has insurance, and for how much. Don't be shy, because this kind of thing could happen to you. And don't think that just because various professionals and bigwigs in town use them, that they're either not going to make a mistake or that they have insurance.
- There is no bank or credit union, no matter how foreign or local, that would not have frozen my assets in response to the merest hint of a request from MA. Every financial institution in the world is going to roll over for a state government like that, and leave you to sort out of if the request was legit or not. There's no place to hide. So Chase isn't actually the bad guy here.
- MA isn't really the bad guy either. The states are strapped for cash, and they're turning over every stone for revenue. What caught my CPA was a wrinkle in the tax law about where to file that for decades many CPAs ignored because the states didn't have the ability to find and go after such things. (MA was claiming that I owed "Massachusetts-sourced income" because Ars Technica LLC was technically headquartered in Malden.) But in today's world of desperate state governments and networked databases, no CPA can afford to be lazy about anything. To their credit, MA let me re-file and did not penalize. I had to pay state taxes twice for that year, though, because IL's books were closed for 2007 and they refused to even consider giving me back the money I erroneously paid them.
- This stuff drags out. While our assets were unfrozen pretty quickly, it was the first week of this month that I finally got a letter from MA telling me that the tax lien was officially lifted and that I'm in the clear.
- There is no statute of limitations on taxes. If they find something from literally 20 years ago, they can load it up with penalties and interest and absolutely crush you. So see the point above about making sure your CPA has a platinum-plated insurance policy.
Can anyone confirm this please?
> Every financial institution in the world is going to roll over for a state government like that, and leave you to sort out of if the request was legit or not. There’s no place to hide. So Chase isn’t actually the bad guy here.
I don't see the logic here. Everyone does it, so it must not be bad? I don't agree.