The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Arbiter Mandate (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/97632-arbiter-mandate.html)

Rich Mon Mar 31, 2014 09:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad (Post 930026)
Do you know why he was unhappy about it? Just curious as to what peoples’ aversions are to RefPay and similar payment services.

I know what aversions I've heard. If you want your money for free, you have to manually transfer it. Automatic transfer carries a fee. That's ridiculous.

Brad Mon Mar 31, 2014 09:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stat-Man (Post 930067)
If asked to speculate, I'd wonder if he dislikes any form of online banking/payment processing.

Yeah. Sounds about right. Usually it’s because the person wants to avoid reporting the income—whether to the IRS or his wife! :D

Adam Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 930068)
I know what aversions I've heard. If you want your money for free, you have to manually transfer it. Automatic transfer carries a fee. That's ridiculous.

It's no different than cashing a check, though. In fact, it takes less effort: and I can cash checks with my smart phone app.

Adam Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:15pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad (Post 930069)
Yeah. Sounds about right. Usually it’s because the person wants to avoid reporting the income—whether to the IRS or his wife! :D

My only aversion is one particular assigner who charges $1 for every RP transaction when he pays for his games.

Nevadaref Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 930091)
My only aversion is one particular assigner who charges $1 for every RP transaction when he pays for his games.

That's because RefPay charges a fee everytime the paying administrator processes a paysheet. It is a sliding scale depending upon how much the individual official is being paid.
That assignor is simply passing on his cost of paying you. Now you can argue that the schools should be assessed that cost or it should be covered by the assignor as part of any assigning fee that he receives, but just as with paper checks, stamps, and envelopes there is a cost associated with making payments to officials. All that needs to be determined is who should pay for it.

Rich Tue Apr 01, 2014 07:46am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 930090)
It's no different than cashing a check, though. In fact, it takes less effort: and I can cash checks with my smart phone app.

It would take just as little effort for RefPay to automatically direct deposit the money on a fixed schedule. Oh, wait, they'll do that for a fee.

Many schools locally are starting to pay by Direct Deposit. Only a handful of schools have gone to RefPay.

Adam Tue Apr 01, 2014 08:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 930104)
That's because RefPay charges a fee everytime the paying administrator processes a paysheet. It is a sliding scale depending upon how much the individual official is being paid.
That assignor is simply passing on his cost of paying you. Now you can argue that the schools should be assessed that cost or it should be covered by the assignor as part of any assigning fee that he receives, but just as with paper checks, stamps, and envelopes there is a cost associated with making payments to officials. All that needs to be determined is who should pay for it.

I get that, I do. I just found it odd that he never charged for checks (including the stamp), but now charges for refpay. While it was optional, I opted for the check. It's not a deal breaker, just a curiosity (and admittedly an annoyance) for me.

big jake Wed Apr 02, 2014 02:28pm

Some older assignors do not have a computer or know how one works from my experiences:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Andy Thu Apr 03, 2014 02:54pm

Do you remember about 10 years ago or so, the IRS started going after individuals who made tips as a majority of their income? the IRS felt that most people were under reporting or not reporting that income at all in order not to be taxed on it.

I have heard that the IRS has now turned an eye toward sports officials. There is pressure on officials organizations and state HS governing bodies to account for the payments to officials. In the past, it was "pick up a check or cash as you arrived for your assignment." I only got a 1099 if I was over the $600 limit from one school district.

As of three years ago here, all HS officiating payments are going through RefPay....now I get a 1099 for all of the HS officiating that I did the previous year.

Centralized officiating payment systems are the way it is going.

Welpe Thu Apr 03, 2014 03:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 930422)

Centralized officiating payment systems are the way it is going.

If it streamlines the process and gets me paid quicker, fine by me!

BayStateRef Thu Apr 03, 2014 03:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 930422)
Do you remember about 10 years ago or so, the IRS started going after individuals who made tips as a majority of their income? the IRS felt that most people were under reporting or not reporting that income at all in order not to be taxed on it.

I have heard that the IRS has now turned an eye toward sports officials. There is pressure on officials organizations and state HS governing bodies to account for the payments to officials. In the past, it was "pick up a check or cash as you arrived for your assignment." I only got a 1099 if I was over the $600 limit from one school district.

I have heard this too...and I think it is going to change the landscape for a lot of sports officials. I have heard from volunteers who run local leagues for basketball, baseball, softball and football that they are under increasing scrutiny from the IRS and have to start issuing 1099s.

I know one league that started this a couple of years ago and subsequently lost a bunch of officials who did not want any "proof" of income. The head of one small baseball league told me his organization paid $24,000 to umpires last year...but the paperwork burden to him and the treasurer to be in full compliance will be large. (They used to pay cash at the field.)

I know far more officials who work for cash and never report their income than I know those who report every penny, but also keep records to offset that income with legal deductions.

Camron Rust Thu Apr 03, 2014 04:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BayStateRef (Post 930429)
I know far more officials who work for cash and never report their income than I know those who report every penny, but also keep records to offset that income with legal deductions.

Then you know a lot of criminals.

As I'm sure you know, ALL income, even if it is cash or if no 1099 is issued is taxable income. The $600 limit for 1099's has nothing to do with whether the income is supposed to be taxable, just that the paying organization need not incur the overhead of having to create the 1099 document.

Those skipping out on their taxes like this are just stealing from the rest who properly report their income and pay taxes on it. I'd bet that a lot of them are also the first ones to sign up for government assistance which means they're not only cheating on their taxes but obtaining income-based benefits they don't deserve, further cheating those that pay their taxes and taking limited resource benefits from those that actually deserve them.They probably also are the first to vote to raise taxes on those actually reporting income so that they can get more from those government programs.

If they're not doing it to skip on taxes, then they're doing it to avoid paying child support for their kids....equally despicable, perhaps more.

Rich Thu Apr 03, 2014 05:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 930431)
Then you know a lot of criminals.

As I'm sure you know, ALL income, even if it is cash or if no 1099 is issued is taxable income. The $600 limit for 1099's has nothing to do with whether the income is supposed to be taxable, just that the paying organization need not incur the overhead of having to create the 1099 document.

Those skipping out on their taxes like this are just stealing from the rest who properly report their income and pay taxes on it. I'd bet that a lot of them are also the first ones to sign up for government assistance which means they're not only cheating on their taxes but obtaining income-based benefits they don't deserve, further cheating those that pay their taxes and taking limited resource benefits from those that actually deserve them.They probably also are the first to vote to raise taxes on those actually reporting income so that they can get more from those government programs.

If they're not doing it to skip on taxes, then they're doing it to avoid paying child support for their kids....equally despicable, perhaps more.

I'd like to see how many of those who preach about integrity don't bother claiming officiating income on their taxes unless they're forced to.

Adam Thu Apr 03, 2014 05:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welpe (Post 930425)
If it streamlines the process and gets me paid quicker, fine by me!

Other than saving a day or two in the mail, I can't say I've seen a marked time savings.

BayStateRef Thu Apr 03, 2014 07:00pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 930431)
Then you know a lot of criminals.

I don't make that judgment. I well know the law and know what my Schedule C shows. My comments were meant to be factual about the reality of any cash profession...including officiating.

There is a change coming to how many of us are paid. I was not trying to start a debate here that dovetails into politics, tax law, child support or anything along those lines.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1