Roadman

Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 6:29 p.m.

There's one issue that I would like to reiterate. There is no question in my mind that payments made to commissioners that are found to clearly not properly payable should be recovered - with court intervention if ncessary. All the hullabaloo about costs for attorney's fees is hogwash since the county has salaried attorneys on staff that could file the legal actions without any additional incremental fee cost to the county. Tom Wieder has made noises that politics are one factor that would prevent a criminal prosecution over these overpayments. I disagree. I am wondering if there has been any referral of this matter to any law enforcement or prosecutorial authority? I believe that an inherent conflict of interest would occur in having the Washtenaw County Sheriff's Department or Prosecuting Attorney investigate this issue since the County Commission is the funding body for both county agencies. There would have to be a referral to an outside County Prosecutor or perhaps the Michigan State Police or Department of Attorney General. Attorney General-elect Bill Schuette has indicated that public corruption will be a top priority and plans the formation of such a task force once he assumes office. If there is any question of criminal conduct there should be an investigation done by these authorities to substantiate or rule out criminal culpability. The fact that we have all new Republicans on the County Commission and that the only remaining offenders cited in the Kestenbaum report are Democrats certainly gives impetus to the power brokers in the Washtenaw County Republican Party to vigorously keep the per diem issue in the public spotlight. The matter of elimination of per diem reimbursement for County Commission members is purely poltical and subject to a public debate on the pros and cons. The matter of restitution for non-properly payable per diems is not debatable - it is a moral and legal imperative that must be followed through with ASAP.

a2citizen

Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 9:51 a.m.

Basic Bob: I think Tom has this under control. I'm all for letting him recover my misused tax dollars....whatever the cost. Also, Tom bringing this story to the public's attention has hopefully ended any future political aspirations of the commissioners involved. The higher up the ladder they go, the bigger the kitty they would have access to.

Tom Wieder

Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 8:09 a.m.

Basic Bob - Oh really, you know that the costs to the County will exceed the amount recovered? Could you please provide those figures, itemized?

Basic Bob

Wed, Dec 22, 2010 : 7 a.m.

I'm thinking we need a FOIA request to verify that the per diem payments were treated as wages and had tax withheld. Assuming that this money is returned, then the individuals and the county could file to recover payroll taxes paid to the US Treasury and the State of Michigan. When this is all done, we will have consumed far more than $26k in wasted county manhours, legal and accounting fees.

a2citizen

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 9:16 p.m.

A2com: Please let Tom vet the next article on this subject. He seems very tuned in. He can use me as a reference, if he so pleases. Local politicians looking for any loophole to help themselves to the cookie jar needs someone like Tom watching them. Tom, our differences lie in the fact that I did not know they were claiming meeting expenses (whatever the heck those are) as per diem. I know very well what per diem is, what it is used for, why and how it is reimbursed. See you on the next blog. And by the way.per diem is NOT taxed.

Tom Wieder

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 8:54 p.m.

a2citizen - The most recent stories don't explain that these are meeting fees, probably because the story is months old, and the reporter hasn't repeated the explanations from when the story surfaced in October and was covered throughout the election and beyond. Are you concerned that the story led you astray, or do you think I'm wrong, because the story uses the term "per diem" without explanation? As the person who raised this issue publicly, and who is familiar with all of the relevant documents and actions, I assure you that these are fees for attending meetings - nothing more, nothing less.

a2citizen

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 8:30 p.m.

Tom, I'm sorry. But where in the story are the "per diems" identified as "meetings fees"?

Tom Wieder

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 5:34 p.m.

a2citizen - Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong on this. Yes, "per diems" up to the IRS limit are not taxable, BUT the meeting fees received, while they are called per diems by the county, are not recognized by the Internal Revenue Code as per diems. Per diem has a definition under the Code. You left out the most important part of the IRS publication, the definition of what a per diem is: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/perdiemfaq%26a.prn.pdf 1. What is per diem? Per diem is an allowance paid to your employees for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses incurred when travelling. This allowance is in lieu of paying their actual travel expenses. 3. What does per diem cover? There is a per diem rate for combined lodging and meal costs, and a per diem rate for meal costs alone. An employer may use either per diem method for reimbursing employee travel expenses. A self-employed person can only use per diem for the meal costs. When a Commissioner goes to a meeting in Washtenaw County and goes home at night, he or she isn't traveling and isn't entitled to meal or lodging costs, either directly reimbursed or covered by a "per diem." Calling a fee for attending a meeting a "per diem" doesn't make it so for IRS purposes. To qualify under the Code as a per diem, the payment must be an allowance for means, lodging and incidental costs while traveling. I don't know how these meeting fees came to be called "per diems," but they don't fit the IRS definition, and the IRS goes by its language, not the County's. To quote you. "End of story."

a2citizen

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 3:45 p.m.

Tom, I excerpted the following from the IRS. I provided the link below. 4. Do I include per diem payments in my employees wages? Per diem payments are not part of the employees wages if the payment and the employer receives an expense report from the employee. 6. When are per diem payments taxable? Payments will be taxable to the employee when any of these situations are true: - No expense report is filed with the employer, - The expense report filed does not include the date, time, place, amount and business purpose of the expense, - A flat amount is given to the employee and no expense report is required, or - Per diem is paid in excess of the allowable standard federal rate. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-regs/per_diem_faq_%26_a_v1.pdf This next link will show you the federally approved per diem rates: (Make sure you select the correct fiscal year). http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21287

a2citizen

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 3:19 p.m.

a2com: My apologies, the article actually says "per diem". Silly me. Anyway, Tom: Per diem is NOT taxed. It may be taxable when you are sitting in front of an IRS auditor and cannot come up with a receipt. But I can tell you that employers, including the United States government, do NOT tax the per diem checks to employees. I know this for a fact. An irrefutable fact. Employers do NOT take out taxes from per diem checks. End of story. But you have brought us back to my original point....the worm turns...and if improperly claimed the IRS might consider it income.

Tom Wieder

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 12:13 p.m.

a2citizen - You've got a couple things wrong about the tax issue. The IRS doesn't care what the payment is called; if it's compensation, it's taxable. The use of the "per diem" term is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with an allowance for daily expenses, or expenses of any kind. It is a flat $25 fee for attending a meeting. The only expense involved is mileage, which is separately reimbursed. You can't avoid taxes by calling compensation expenses. The IRS looks at the reality, not the label, and the reality is that Commissioner per diems are compensation subject to tax. As to the mileage reimbursement rate, the IRS figure is not what an employer - including the County - is required to pay. It is the maximum amount that the IRS allows to be considered an "expense." An employer could reimburse at a higher or lower rate (some do). You can't try to hide taxable income by calling it "per diems" or "mileage" and say that's for expenses.

cinnabar7071

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 10:12 a.m.

Townie are you saying it's OK to steal if your a democrat and don't steal as much as the republican? Cause to me stealing is stealing, the only difference is the republican did a better job.

a2citizen

Tue, Dec 21, 2010 : 9:59 a.m.

a2.com: I don't mean to give you more work to do or dispatch your reporters, but it would be helpful to know exactly what the commissioners were reimbursed for. My guess it was mileage and/or per diem. What they were reimbursed for may indicate their level of arrogance.

a2citizen

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 11:44 p.m.

@Tom Weider: Tom, I'm not sure how the commissioners were reimbursed. I can only guess it was either mileage or per diem. Reimbursements are not taxed because they are not income, they are reimbursements. If it was mileage, then it is NOT TAXED when reimbursed. It is reimbursed at a rate of 50 cents per mile. The rate is set by the IRS based on GSA criteria. If it was per diem, then it was NOT TAXED when reimbursed. Per diem is meant to cover meals and incidental expenses. Trust me....I spent over twenty years on the road and I filled out a weekly expense report every week that entire time. My colleagues filled out expense reports also. I know several people that were audited by the IRS on their road expenses. The paper article notes that Ouimet has called because he has already written out his check. Maybe his tax attorney recommended it.

Mike D.

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 10:57 p.m.

I feel blessed that I live in a place where people can summon righteous indignation about a few hundred dollars of legitimate travel expenses (see "10 thieves" comment). It belies blissful inexperience with meaningful malfeasance.

Tom Wieder

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 10:52 p.m.

@a2citizen-"Roadman, people may forget, but the IRS doesn't. If the money was improperly claimed and not paid back the IRS might consider it income." Unless the commissioners evaded taxes, they already paid tax on the improperly received income in the years they received it. They don't have an IRS problem. To the contrary, they might be able to file some amended returns and get some taxes back, if they return the improper income.

David Briegel

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 10:02 p.m.

Townie, a2citizen, Everyone knows that the Republicans are the BIG spenders! Tax cut and spend!!

a2citizen

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 9:39 p.m.

Townie: The math works out the same in the end.... 2 Republicans + 8 Democrats ________________ = 10 Thieves

Townie

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 9:12 p.m.

cinnabar7071: 'Of those payments, more than $16,600 belonged to Commissioner Mark Ouimet, R-Scio Township, and more than $4,800 belonged to Jessica Ping, R-Saline. Eight Democrats on the board averaged $675 apiece.' Slight difference I'd say between $675 vs $16,600 and $4,800. Well, maybe more than slight.

a2citizen

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 8:32 p.m.

Roadman, people may forget, but the IRS doesn't. If the money was improperly claimed and not paid back the IRS might consider it income. The worm might turn slowly, but it does turn. And they can pay the county now, or the IRS later (plus interest and fines).

Roadman

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 7:57 p.m.

Yeah, it sounds like the coroner's report in the Clifton Lee, Jr. case which was withheld for a number of weeks so the media furor could die down. Looks like the same phenomenon here. By January, more people will have forgotten about it and the public pressure to abolish per diem compensation will have subsided to some degree. Also, Commissioners Mark Ouimet and Jessica Ping will no longer be on the commission to able to vote against legal action to recoup per diems.

Cash

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 7:45 p.m.

Delay until they get more paper shredders? Can't you just imagine the CYA going on? Thinking about that almost makes it worthwhile.

cinnabar7071

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 7:10 p.m.

LOL @ David that goes for the eight Democrats too, not just the two Republicans.

David Briegel

Mon, Dec 20, 2010 : 5:43 p.m.

hey, look at the bright side, those Republicans won't have to reimburse the taxpayers until NEXT year! Right Tony?