I haven’t, and I’m not going to, look at how his restitution is set up, but I’m assuming that no matter how much of what he has or earns that they take, they have to leave him with something. If you take 100% of someone’s earnings, they have no motivation to earn anything and therefore you won’t get paid either.
One of my employees was getting his wages garnished by THREE different women (child support) at one point. Even with a limit on how much could be garnished, they were still taking so much that he’d often stop showing up to work for a month here and there. From his point of view, if he worked 20 hours he’d take home $100, if he worked 40 hours, he’d take home $120, so why even bother. If they took 100% of his money he’d have no reason at all to bother working.
Sort of a ‘dead men tell no tales’ situation or why your bookie will break your legs but not kill you.
What happens if they pay him in benefits? Like, here’s minimum wage; also, we have a hotel room that we put VIPs up in, and, well, no one is using it this week, so you’re welcome to it. One perk of staying there is the continental breakfast; help yourself. What follows?
Tax fraud when he doesn’t declare it as income and pay tax on it. Calling it a complementary room for VIPs would go over about as well as calling your full time employees contractors.
As and when the IRS starts enforcing against the (formerly) wealthy that might become a concern for Rudy. They haven’t been much of a factor for about 20 years now.
And all this is before trump takes a shot at converting the IRS (& SEC & FBI & …) into personal vendetta enforcement agencies, rather than law enforcement agencies.
I don’t think I said anything about neither declaring it nor paying taxes on it.
I’m asking — and I’m genuinely asking, I don’t know what the answer is — what happens if (a) someone who won a lawsuit can garnish funds right out of paychecks written to him, and yoink money from his bank accounts, and so on, and (b) he spends a weekend at a hotel and then openly declares every detail of that stay to the IRS: who rented the room, and how much they paid, and whether there was a heated swimming pool, and even what instructions he gave at the omelet bar to that guy in the chef’s hat, all while he never touched so much as a single dollar bill or a one-penny check…
…and then he explains that he’ll make sure the appropriate taxes are paid; and then he looks over at the person who’d won that lawsuit against him, and says and you’ll get paid every cent you’re entitled to. What happens next?
I can’t readily find anything* on the internet about non-monetary income, that can’t be ‘sold’, getting garnished. However, in my limited experience, the employee doesn’t directly make the payments, the employer shorts their paycheck and sends that money to whoever it’s owed to. If it can be proved that the free hotel rooms are essentially a form of wages, the employer would probably have to pay the amount they’d spend on the hotel room to the person garnishing their wages.
IOW, say, $1500/wk for the hotel. I’m thinking Rudy doesn’t get to stay in the hotel and his employer has to include that $1500 in their garnishment calculations.
It should also be noted that, again IME, if the employer ignores the garnishment, THEY owe it. Any employer that tries to pay Rudy under the table might find themselves in more hot water than they expected.
*Google AI’s results make some mention of Fringe Benefits, so it might be covered there, but I didn’t dig into it.
‘If I stay at a hotel, my employer pays whatever the hotel then says they’re owed — and if I ever owe the IRS some money, my employer shrugs and pays them, too. Me, I never see a penny either time.’
I consider it entirely plausible that some Right Wing group will hire Rudy for a dual purpose. To pwn the liberals, and in doing so, they’ll refuse to comply with the garnishing, and by employing Rudy through a “business friendly” state, they’ll be assured of a very, Very long time before the courts choose to be bothered with following up.
If at all.
Of course, if they’re smart, they’ll still CYA where all responsibility for such BS is still on Rudy’s head eventually. And of course, I wouldn’t also put it past Rudy to refuse to pay any state or federal taxes, expecting the fix to be in as well, though he may well be mistaken there.
That said, it interests me even minus that specific hypothetical. Take an employer out of it; say that some Giuliani fanboy can’t so much as hand the guy a dollar without Giuliani then being required to turn money over to the folks who (a) sued him and (b) won; and say that Giuliani — without a penny to his name, let alone in his pocket — then runs up debts all over town. And say that said fanboy later pays each of those freshly-incurred debts. And say that all of this is done with complete transparency.
I’m not sure they could, but all that ‘forgiven’ debt is considered taxable income and taxes need to be paid on it.
Having said that, I’ve received letters from the IRS about some of our vendors that owe them money. The letters direct me to pay the IRS the money I owe the vendor instead of paying the vendor directly. However, I don’t think something like that would work a situation like the one you explained. My WAG is that if the IRS figured out who the fanboy was, they’ll be in contact with them.
I’m not seeing what you’re getting at; I’m suggesting a situation where the IRS doesn’t have to figure out who the fanboy is or contact him: one where the fanboy simply — and openly — pays those taxes just like he pays those debts.
