irs fraud?

[patty poo]

Is it illegal for an employer to falsify information that one of his family members are employed in the business and recieves a paycheck when in all actuality, they are not working there at all.

[sir.prize]

Write and ask Derek Conway, still an MP (but only just)

[bednobs]

sory, this site is predominantly english so not a lot of people know about american law.
In answer to your question, in the uk, yes

[Ethel]

I see you have asked how to contact Derek Conway, the MP who paid his sons out of parliamentary allowances for work they didn't do.

You will not get an answer if you do contact him about this,and the first reply you received was tongue in cheek.

Can you be sure the family member doesn't work from home?

As already said, this is a UK site so you are unlikely to get any relevant answers for the USA

[Stu Dent]

It is fraud. But fraud is only illegal if it's you or me that does it. MP's and MSP's are apparently exempt.

[patty poo]

thanks for all the answers. i did not realized when I first pulled this site up that is was based in the UK.

I am pretty sure the IRS would frown on such a thing here in the US also.

Yes, I am sure the wife does not work out of the house.

thanks again.

[factor-fiction]

I am assuming from what you say that it is his own business? If so I can't see what the problem is with putting them on the payroll. And she may be poviding some service. It used to be common (and may still be) for owners to pay their wives a salary equivalent to the tax free allowance as a tax avoidance measure, and they could usually argue that they provided some admin/advisory support. As long as it's all declared for tax, NI I don't see a problem.

[Stu Dent]

Well I see a problem. For one thing it appears that his sons were employed at the taxpayer's expense doing damn all to show for being paid to do a job with not a shred of evidence that they performed any duties. The second problem I have is that if a genuine vacancy exists (again I remind you that the taxpayer foots the bill) then that vacancy should be made available for anyone with the necessary skills to apply for that job and be given fair consideration. Mr Conway has employed three members of his family all paid for at my//your/our expense, and sacked a member of staff so that he could employ his wife.

[factor-fiction]

I wonder if Stu Dent is under the misapprehension that my response related to Derek Conway. Well my response was not about Derek Conway. I was responding to the question asked by Patty Poo about an employer employing someone within a business. My answer related to someone who owns a business.
I don't think PattyPoo's question which was realting to a US situation, was about Derek Conway.
The circumstances of Derek Conway were diffrent because it was public money and people are rightly concerened- although of course it has gone on for years that MPs have paid wives/husbands for admin support etc

[Stu Dent]

No, I just thought maybe you misunderstood the importance of the distinction between the staffing arrangements of ordinary privatly funded employers and publicly funded M.P.'s.

By the way, HMRC are pretty adept at identifying tax avoidance and tax evasion. Which should maybe beg the question, why are they not investigating Mr Conway and his family's tax payments. Then again, maybe they are. That would be three problems I have with Mr Conway then.