Live data from Hacker News

Mistakes You Should Never Make

sethbannon.com

81–90 of 348 posts

Re: Mistakes You Should Never Make

#81
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It happens to everyone. It happens to a lot of people but certainly not to everybody. As a rule of thumb in the first two years you simply want to reserve 50% of your gross until you get a better handle on what your deductibles are and what it is that you exactly owe and then you can slowly home in on the correct amount to reserve. Too many variables to get closer but 50% should cover all but the most extreme cases…

That's a good rule of thumb, but a better rule is probably to just get an accountant on day one. For 1099 consulting businesses, doing your own taxes is probably a false economy. I think a lot of people assume they can put off getting an accountant until they're sure the business is serious. Which is probably why so many of the stories I've heard (and, to add to that, my own story) are about the tax screwup consequen…

Sure you should get an accountant. But you should still reserve that much money.

Getting an accountant is your first major purchase as a new business owner.

And getting a good one is not all that easy. I lucked out, the one I ended up with (after trying two others) was a CFO of a large company that decided he had enough of the pressure and joined his wife's fledgling accounting company.

So instead of just having an accountant I ended up with a mentor to boot, all for the price of one.

Re: Mistakes You Should Never Make

#82
Can someone clarify why dropping out of Harvard Extension School is a subset of dropping out of Harvard University? I checked out Wikipedia, but it's not very clear about Harvard's system and the different colleges (Harvard College, Radcliff College, Extension School, ...) I've always assumed there was just one "University of Harvard", but apparently it's more complicated...

Re: Mistakes You Should Never Make

#83
I know this is a minor point of the article, but as someone with a degree from Harvard Extension I need to weigh in on that part of the story. I hate people who make this lie of ommission. Harvard Extension isn't Harvard College or Harvard Business School, but it still provides a very good education with great flexibility at an even better price. However, there is a small minority of people that continuely try to pass off their degree (or in this case a lack of degree, which is an even bigger crime considering that both the admission and graduate rates of the College and Extension School are roughly inverses of each other) as something more than it is. This isn't a fabricated credential on a resume; it is a lie that makes other people guilty by association. Everytime someone confesses or is caught doing this my degree becomes devalued. It establishes a repuation for HES students and alumni as unethical Harvard wannabees that are looking for any way to cut corners. The lesson to learn is not about managing your own reputation for ethics and honesty, but to also remember that you are a member of community. You don't only represent yourself. You represent yourself, your company, your friends, your family, your school, your industry, your hometown, your gender, your race, your sexual preference...

Obligatory [semi-]relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/385/

Re: Mistakes You Should Never Make

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salespeople who sell products by providing false information are committing fraud on behalf of the company and should be fired.

That would result in mass unemployment in some sectors of industry. The problem is that as long as your competitor says 'yes' and you say 'no' the competitor will get the customer. Customers should be firing companies that provide false information during the lead-up to a sale. Then the sales people can stay employed and everybody comes out ahead.

> That would result in mass unemployment in some sectors of industry.

Are you making an implicit suggestion that we should tolerate fraud because it employs people?

Re: Mistakes You Should Never Make

#88
That had to be a tough article to write, thanks Seth.

The thing that really stuck with me is the 'technically true' aspects. Growing up in various places around the world I encountered a number of people for whom their motto was 'its only illegal if you get caught!' The advantages of this motto were very apparent as a teen, you could run a stop light at 11:30pm, there was hardly anyone around, and you could be home by curfew. You could use your parents car if it was back where they expected it to be when they next needed it. Sort of the ultimate Ferris Bueller.

And then I had as an influence my Grandfather, who was a US Attorney, and who valued his integrity over his own life. I think of him as sort of the other end of this spectrum.

I asked him about his unwillingness to do what others have done (at the time it was drive faster than the speed limit on an empty road) and he said, "Charles, the world is full of pain and anguish, when a man lives by a code he can walk among that pain and anguish and help right its wrongs without being burdened by having contributed to it." (well that is how I remembered it, there was probably a story about hunting in there too) and I didn't really understand it until much later.

Re: Mistakes You Should Never Make

#89
post #33

Of all the financial mistakes you can possibly make running a company, withholding payroll taxes and then failing to remit them is probably the worst. Be thankful you caught this before the liability exceeded your available funds, because company operators are apparently routinely held personally liable when there's a shortfall, and I'm not sure that debt is even dischargeable in bankruptcy. What's worse, minor versi…

The logic here appears to be that since the employee is deemed to have paid the government on the day that an employee receives his or her paycheck, the employer is holding those funds in a trust for the government, to be remitted quarterly. The government appears to believe in Monteiro's strategy: "Fuck you, pay me." So you -- as an officer, an employee who pays bills, possibly a board member, or possibly other related parties -- can be personally liable if, for example, you used money from that presumptive trust to pay any other bill.

   Although Internal Revenue Code Section 6672 includes officers, partners, and 
   employees, it does not exclude other individuals or firms that that can be 
   held liable.  The IRS will first try to recover payment from the responsible 
   persons with the most liquid assets, but will also concurrently hold as many 
   people as possible liable, each with joint and several liability for this 
   100% penalty.  There is no presumption of innocence in trust fund tax 
   situations. In Skouras v. United States, the court determined the assessment 
   on a responsible party is presumptively correct and issues relating to 
   willfulness could be resolved at the summary judgment level. The individual 
   has the burden of disproving by a preponderance of the evidence, the 
   existence of one or both of the elements that is willfulness or 
   responsibility. [1]
here [1] are some interesting horror stories:

   Aside from the persons normally thought of as being responsible for these 
   taxes (CEO, CFO, President, Secretary, Treasurer, partner), the courts have 
   given fairly wide latitude as to which entities or individuals the IRS can 
   assign responsibility to. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court held that 
   the third party liability for trust fund taxes was affirmed against a lender 
   who paid employees’ wages with the knowledge the firm did not intend or 
   would not be able to make timely deposits of the trust fund taxes. In 1985 
   the courts found that a lawyer, who had power of attorney from the owner to 
   operate a car dealership, was found liable for the 100% penalty. In another 
   case the IRS determined that workers were incorrectly classified as 
   independent contractors and assessed the 100% penalty to the principals of 
   the firm. In a 1984 Revenue Ruling, the IRS stated that a volunteer member 
   of a board of trustees for a charitable organization can be held liable for 
   the 6672 penalty. In 1978 the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
   determined that a general contractor was responsible for the trust fund 
   taxes not remitted by a subcontractor. An accounting firm was held liable as 
   a responsible party because it had failed to remit a client’s trust fund 
   taxes and paid creditors other than the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS 
   deemed the friend of a business owner responsible because he paid some 
   utility bills for the company, extended loans or pledged collateral on loans 
   to the company.
   
   Imagine the shock when the IRS levied the Individual Retirement Account 
   (“IRA”) account of an officer of an S corporation and then included the 
   proceeds of the levied funds in the taxpayer’s Adjusted Gross Income for the 
   purpose of determining his earned income. The IRS used the constructive 
   receipt doctrine to conclude the amount levied from an IRA was a 
   disbursement – it had to be included as income. The taxpayer was further 
   refrained from deducting it as a pass through loss or a necessary business 
   expense. This is just a sampling of the many cases involving withholding tax 
   liability and the long arm reach of the IRS’ “responsible party” strategy. [1]
Like I said -- you can pretty fairly characterize this as, "Fuck you, pay me." Where I to own a business, I would strongly consider creating segregated accounts to hold the funds owed to the government. In fact, it would be nice if I could create a way to just pay the government every other week along with payroll so I would have no owed-to-the-government funds on hand to create temptation...

[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2306636_code...

Re: Mistakes You Should Never Make

#90

Mistake 1: Taxes This thing about not noticing that you weren't paying payroll taxes wasn't a "mistake." It was pure head-in-assery. How can you "miss" the fact that you weren't being subtracted for payroll taxes? One quarterly / annual review after another, for 3 years? It's like running a personal budget, and "missing" the fact that you aren't paying rent.

It boils down to not having a handle on the general ledger, which if not suicide is at least reckless self-endangerment. But I think it is plausible for someone who is administrativaphobic. But there is a reason this is mistake #1 .

> it is plausible for someone who is administrativaphobic

Okay. But then you shouldn't really call oneself a CEO.

Post reply on HN