Did you know that IRS penalties may be charged to you even if you deposited your tax liabilities on time?

The IRS may assess an "averaged" failure-to-deposit (FTD) penalty of 2% to 10% if you are a monthly schedule depositor and did not properly complete line 15 of Form 941 when your tax liability (line 10) shown on Form 941 exceeded $2,500. IRS may also assess an "averaged" FTD penalty of 2% to 10% if you are a semiweekly schedule depositor and your tax liability (line 10) shown on Form 941 exceeded $2,500 and you:

·         Completed line 15 of Form 941 instead of Schedule B (Form 941),

·         Failed to attach a properly completed Schedule B (Form 941), or

·         Improperly completed Schedule B (Form 941) by, for example, entering tax deposits instead of tax liabilities in the numbered spaces.

The FTD penalty is figured by distributing your total tax liability shown on line 10 of Form 941 equally throughout the tax period. As a result, your deposits and payments may not be counted as timely because the actual dates of your tax liabilities cannot be accurately determined. You can avoid an "averaged" FTD penalty by reviewing your return before you file it. Follow these steps before submitting your Form 941.

·         If you are a monthly schedule depositor, report your tax liabilities (not your deposits) in the monthly entry spaces on line 15.

·         If you are a semiweekly schedule depositor, report your tax liabilities (not your deposits) on Schedule B (Form 941) in the lines that represent the dates your employees were paid.

·         Verify that your total liability shown on line 15 of Form 941 or the bottom of Schedule B (Form 941) equals your tax liability shown on line 10 of Form 941.

·         Do not show negative amounts on line 15 or Schedule B (Form 941). If a prior period correction results in a decrease to your tax liability, reduce your liability for the day that you discovered the error by the tax decrease resulting from the error, but not below zero. Apply any remaining decrease to subsequent liabilities.

StaffScapes, a Professional Employer Organization (PEO), takes over the responsibility and liability of tax deposit and reporting for our clients.  Please call (303)466-7864 and ask a StaffScapes’ representative how we can reduce your tax administration liability.

Colorado new hire reporting guidelines

Federal law requires all employers to report new hire data to their respective State Directory of New Hires. For the State of Colorado, employers are required to report their new hire data within 20 calendar days after the date of hire.

Federal law requires all employers to report new hire data to their respective State Directory of New Hires. For the State of Colorado, employers are required to report their new hire data within 20 calendar days after the date of hire.

What to Report on Employee:

¨      Employee name

¨      Address

¨      Social Security Number

What to Report on Employer:

¨      Employer name

¨      Payroll address

¨      Federal Identification Number

For more information on Colorado employer and employee reporting, please visit the Colorado State Directory of New Hires website.

What to do if an OSHA inspector knocks on your door!

Following these simple steps during an inspection by an OSHA official will provide smooth operation and can avoid potential fines.

·        Ask the OSHA inspector to provide his/her identification.

·        Contact your senior management and attorneys to get them involved immediately.

·        Ask the inspector about the reason for the visit and ask for details explaining the method of inspection.

·        Personally take the inspector directly to where he or she needs to go.

·        Make a copy of any documents you give to the inspector.

When dealing with the inspector keep the meeting professional. Answer the inspector’s questions honestly but only provide answers for the question asked, do not try and elaborate.  Also do not give an inspector free-reign over your facility. You may feel confident in your compliance efforts, but you actually waive legal rights and protections if you open your company up more than needed.

In the summertime, the number of minors working increases. Here are some basic guidelines when it comes to hiring minors in the state of Colorado.

Minors are any person under the age of 18, unless they have received a high school diploma or received a passing scored on the GED.

1. No minors are allowed to work more than 40 hours in a week, or more than eight hours in any 24 hour period.
2. Excluding specific exceptions, no minor under the age of 14 is allowed to work in the state of Colorado
3. Not including a few exceptions, no minors under the age of 16 is allowed to work between the hours of 9:30 pm- 5:30 a.m., unless they are babysitters
4. Work permits are not required by Colorado law

These few guidelines are the basic things to remember when hiring minors. For more information on minor labor laws or requirements, exemptions, and prohibitions, please contact a StaffScapes representative at (303) 466-7864, or visit the Colorado DOL website at http://www.coworkforce.com/LAB/

How much can you disclose about a past employee?

Colorado law not only allows but immunes a former employer from civil liability and damages for the release of employment history and information to future employers.  This is a good thing to remember when you get reference checks concerning your past employees.  Not only does this help our state by allowing free exchange of information, it also helps avoid a new form of liability for not releasing pertinent past employment history.  Some lawsuits are now going through several courts where prior employers are being sued for not releasing employment information when employees have been terminated for embezzlement or violence.  StaffScapes advises employers to verify your responsibilities and rights with each state that you are working in. 

As for Colorado, the Colorado Revised Statutes 8-2-114 states “Any employer who provides information about a current or former employee’s job history or job performance to a prospective employer of the current or former employee upon request of the prospective employer or the current or former employee is immune from civil liability and is not liable in civil damages for the disclosure or any consequences of the disclosure. This immunity shall not apply when such employee shows by a preponderance of the evidence both of the following:

(a) The information disclosed by the current or former employer was false; and

(b) The employer providing the information knew or reasonably should have known that the information was false.”

For more information please visit the Colorado Department of Labor’s website at : www.coworkforce.com

New law gives injured workers a choice of medical provider.

House Bill 07-1176 will affect all Colorado employers as of January 1, 2008. The bill, enacted by the Colorado Legislature, changes the Colorado Workers Compensation Act, requiring all employers to provide a list of at least two medical providers that injured workers can choose from.  The listed providers must be at separate and distinct locations and have no common ownership.  Injured workers must also be allowed to make a one-time change of the treating physician within 90 days of injury as long as maximum medical improvement (MMI) has not been reached.  The injured worker must make a change to one of the other listed providers. If a provider list was not given to the injured worker at time of injury or within the first seven days after, then injured worker will have right to use any physician of their choosing.  A few exceptions apply to this new law for employers in rural areas, employer-owned medical providers, governmental entities, and on-site health care facilities.

For additional information regarding House Bill 07-1176 and its effects, please contact StaffScapes’ Risk Management department.

Update on the new HB 1366 and Pinnacol Assurance’s requirements.

Last week I posted an article outlining the new Colorado requirements that companies in the construction industry must follow regarding subcontractors. After reviewing the rejection of coverage requirements for owners and partners, I questioned Pinnacol Assurance concerning the requirement to complete their Independent Contractor form as well as the Division of Workers’ Compensation’s Rejection of Coverage Form. Unfortunately the answer I received was that the Pinnacol form and the Division’s form are two separate and unique forms and both are required to be completed and filed individually.  I was also reminded that if an Independent Contractor form is not filed with Pinnacol, they reserve the right to charge premiums on any wages paid to the independent contractors.  Also if the Rejection of Coverage Form is not filed with the Division, then they may assess a penalty up to $500 per day.

So, if you are in the construction industry and you have any subcontractors that are waiving workers’ compensation coverage, then you need to complete and file two separate rejection forms.

The process of processing unemployment for former employees can be a daunting task, here is some information to explain the process

It is inevitable that employers will receive an unemployment claim from at least a few former employees.  The first documents you will receive are from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, are a “Request for Job-Separation Information” and a “Notice of Unemployment Insurance Claim, Wages Reported, and Potential Charges.”

The “Notice of Unemployment Insurance Claim…” document is usually a white colored document that lists the quarterly earnings for the employee who is filing for unemployment, and all the employer needs to do is verify the earnings are correct.

The Request for Job Separation Information is usually a yellow colored document and is used as employment verification, as well as a statement to why the employee is no longer working for the employer. It is the employers’ duty to make sure this form is filled out correctly. The form will ask the former employee’s date of hire, the last day worked, the rate of pay, and the reason why the employee is no longer working. The form will also ask payroll questions, such as, did the claimant receive wages in lieu of notice, was vacation paid out upon termination, was there a severance allowance?

On the back side of the form is more elaboration to the question of why the employee is no longer working. If the employers marks that the employee quit or was discharged, the back side of the document is used to explain the incident that led to the employee’s resignation or discharge.

The most important section of the Job Separation Information document is the date in the upper right hand corner that states when the form must be received by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. Employers can fax or mail the document to the department, but if they turn it in after the specified date, the information will be ignored unless the employer can provide a valid reason of why the form was not turned in on time.

After the Request for Job-Separation Information document is turned in to the department, a deputy of the Division of Employment and Training will make a decision to either deny or grant an award of unemployment benefits to the claimant.

The Colorado Department of Labor just announced the new minimum wage rate for 2008

The new rule enacted last year to the Colorado Constitution requires the state’s minimum wage rate to be adjusted each year for inflation. The inflation adjustment is based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley combined area. This adjustment is based on the difference between the CPI-U from the first half of the prior year and the first half of the current year. The CPI-U increased 2.5% from the first half of 2006 compared to the first half of 2007.  This adjustment will increase the 2008 minumum wage rate to $7.02 per hour, effective January 1, 2008.  The Tip credit for 2008 has not changed so the minimum wage rate for "Tipped Employees" will be $4.00 ($7.02 - $3.02).

For More information please go to the Colorado Department of Labor’s home page at: www.coworkforce.com.

Minimum Increases July 24

Federal minimum wage will increase again on July 24, 2008 to $6.55.  This is the second of the 3 step increase put in place in 2007.  July 24, 2009 the federal minimum wage will increase again to $7.25.

In addition employers need to check the state minimum wage and compensate employees the higher of the two wages.  For example, in Colorado the state minimum wage is $7.02, so employers are required to pay at least $7.02 per hour.

For up to date posters or additional information on wage requirements contact StaffScapes, your Human Resourse Solution Center.  www.staffscapes.com or  303-466-7864.

Several labor law initiatives heat up Colorado’s ballot in November.

The 2008 general election ballot will have a battle between organized labor and business interests competing to get ballot initiatives passed for their side. The battle began when business interests, led by Jonathan Coors, filed a “Right to Work” initiative. Organized labor then filed offsetting initiatives, four of which would be economically devastating to Colorado. These four initiatives, discussed in greater length in later blogs, include; Initiative 74- Criminal Accountability for Business Executives, Initiative 76- Allowable Reasons for Employee Discharge or Suspension, Initiative 92- Employer Responsibility for Health Insurance, and Initiative 93- Additional Remedies for an Unsafe and Unhealthy Workplace. 

Major Colorado leaders representing both sides, including Governor Ritter, Senator Salazar, Denver Chamber of Commerce CEO Joe Blake and MDEDC Executive VP Tom Clark, have unsuccessfully made efforts to get all of the initiatives removed. If voters do not take the time and effort to understand the effects of these initiatives, they will be passed and dramatically stunt our state’s economic growth.  

StaffScapes review of the devastating labor initiatives on the November Ballot.

Initiative #74 would “hold a business executive criminally responsible for the business’s failure to perform a duty required by law if the official knew of the duty and the failure to perform it.” The term executive extends to partners, officers, directors, managers, proprietors, supervisors and includes executives of non-profits and home owner associations. This initiative would extend criminal accountability to business executives who were aware of their business’s failure to perform a legal duty.

Listed below is the potential impact of initiative #74:

Ø      Current state and federal laws already hold business executives accountable with recent federal laws strengthening criminal and civil penalties for executives who commit fraud.

Ø      Initiative 74 does not require the party bringing the suit to have legal standing, allowing politically-motivated or frivolous charges to be brought against business executives.

Ø      Initiative 74 also allows the plaintiff’s attorney fees to be reimbursed if successful but does not extend that to the executive defending the suit.

Ø      Extending the definition of an executive down to manager level can hinder recruitment of employee talent.

Ø      Community leaders and volunteers may be reluctant to serve on nonprofit boards and home owner associations due to fear of prosecution.

Ø      Initiative 74 creates a way to avoid accountability by creating an immunity loop-hole for executives who report knowledge of their business’s failure to comply with the law.

Should your son or daughter, working as a shift-manager at a local fast food restaurant, face criminal prosecution for a hair on a french fry? Do you think a teenage supervisor at your city’s recreation center should be imprisoned for the pool’s chlorine level being slightly too low? Should you have criminal liability for volunteering on your home owners association? Do you want political organizations to be able to threaten criminal lawsuits against individuals employed by companies that they do not like?

If the organized labor initiatives are successfully passed this November, our state’s economic growth will be dramatically stunted for years to come. Please check future editions of our blog to view the other initiatives that can have a devastating impact to Colorado.

Sources: Tomlinson & Associates; Economic Development Council of Colorado

StaffScapes review of the devastating labor initiatives on the November Ballot.

Initiative #76 would eliminate “at will” employment in Colorado, prohibiting employers from firing or suspending full-time employees except for reasons defined in the amendment as “just cause”.  The term “just cause” includes: incompetence; substandard performance; neglect of job duties; repeated violations of an employer’s written policies and procedures; gross insubordination; employer bankruptcy; and documented adverse economic circumstances. This initiative would allow the terminated employee to sue the employer, challenging the firing or suspension. The court may order the employee to be reinstated and awarded back wages, damages and legal fees.

Listed below is the potential impact of initiative #76:

Ø      Current state and federal laws already limit at-will employment and protect employees from being terminated for reasons for discriminatory reasons such as race, sex, religion and age.

Ø      Imposing constitutional restrictions on businesses will increase administrative and litigation costs, hurting our local businesses and economy

Ø      Initiative 76 will prevent businesses from making basic financial decisions such as reorganization, automating operations and reducing unnecessary employment

Ø      Initiative 76 requires “binding arbitration” making the decision final without ability to appeal

Ø      New business may be reluctant to relocate to Colorado or may force existing businesses to move outside of Colorado

Ø      The estimate of fiscal impact shows an increase of government spending from this initiative of $1.3 million based on roughly 3,750 lawsuits being brought (which this writer believes is underestimated)

Should a business be forced to continue employing someone who has a major personality conflict and brings down the motivation and enjoyment of the entire organization? Do you want to be forced to continue to work with a co-worker such as this? Will you be comfortable working next to this disgruntled co-worker after reinstatement? How would you feel if your employer went out of business due to frivolous lawsuits from this initiative?

If the organized labor initiatives are successfully passed this November, our state’s economic growth will be dramatically stunted for years to come. Please check future editions of our blog to view the other initiatives that can have a devastating impact to Colorado.

Sources: Tomlinson & Associates; Economic Development Council of Colorado

StaffScapes review of the devastating labor initiatives on the November Ballot.

Initiative #92 would “Require every private employer with 20 or more employees to provide health insurance for both employees and their dependents.” The initiative also requires employers to pay at least 80 percent of the employee only premiums and 70 percent of dependent premium coverage. Employers who do not comply with providing the insurance would have to then pay into a newly established state authority.

Listed below is the potential impact of initiative #92:

Ø      Current federal law generally prohibits mandating or requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage.

Ø      The majority of Colorado employers currently offer health insurance to their employees, mandating employer contributions will not improve the uninsured problems.

Ø      Initiative 92 will create a massive government run agency to implement the system and provide coverage for those whose employers do not comply.

Ø      Businesses will be hindered by additional financial burdens, resulting in higher costs to do business, lost jobs and increases in the price for goods and services.

Ø      Puts the responsibility of defining what a “major medical” plan is, and how to fund the new government agency in the hands of the legislature.

Ø      Initiative 92 creates reasons for employers to terminate full time employees and replace them with part-timers; also gives employers reason to discriminate against hiring employees with dependents.

Should state laws restrict business growth and mandate benefit offerings, removing the ability to balance needs of employees while meeting financial budgeting? Should employees be laid off and replaced with part-time employees? Do you want employers to focus on how many dependents and applicant has instead of experience and education? Do you want a new government super-agency deciding medical plan designs and funding? Has government run medical care ever been successful?

If the organized labor initiatives are successfully passed this November, our state’s economic growth will be dramatically stunted for years to come. Please check past and future editions of our blog to view the other initiatives that can have a devastating impact to Colorado.

Sources: Tomlinson & Associates; Economic Development Council of Colorado

StaffScapes review of the devastating labor initiatives on the November Ballot.

Initiative #93 would “allow an injured employee to bring an action in District Court for compensatory and punitive damages, if the employer fails to provide a safe and healthy workplace.” The term “safe and healthy workplace” is not defined in the initiative. This new action is available in addition to the rights that the employee has under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act. This initiative would apply to every employer in the state with 10 of more employees.

Listed below is the potential impact of initiative #93:

Ø      Current state and federal laws exist to ensure safe and healthy working conditions for employees.

Ø      Colorado employers already have motivation to provide a safe workplace based on their workers compensation insurance costs being directly related to work injury severity and number of claims.

Ø      Initiative 93 will allow injured employees to “double-dip”, collecting benefits from the Workers’ Compensation Act and then filing a lawsuit against the employer for unlimited damages in district court.

Ø      Businesses will be hindered by additional financial burdens due to higher insurance costs, resulting in lost jobs and increases in the price for goods and services.

Ø      Puts the responsibility of defining what a “safe and healthy workplace” is in the hands of the district courts.

Ø      With the current backlog of court cases, Initiative 93 will result in trial lawyers looking for the “quick buck” through settlements.

Should trial lawyers be rewarded with an additional state law to allow them to threaten businesses who already have to meet state and federal safe workplace standards? Should Colorado business growth and employment be restricted in order to enact an unnecessary and superfluous law? Should employees be able to double-dip and receive full benefits from the Workers Compensation Act then sue the employer for unlimited damages? Do you want employers to pay more for insurance and defense against frivolous lawsuits or increase wages and employee benefits? Do you want individual district court judges deciding what is “safe” and “healthy” and what the “workplace” is?

If the organized labor initiatives are successfully passed this November, our state’s economic growth will be dramatically stunted for years to come. Please check past editions of our blog to view the other initiatives that can have a devastating impact to Colorado.

Sources: Tomlinson & Associates; Economic Development Council of Colorado

PEO’s are looking forward to the new licensing rules going into effect in January.

January 2009 will provide a new change for PEO’s in Colorado. All Professional Employer Organizations will have to receive certification from the state. Here at StaffScapes, Inc. we welcome the change. With most other states requiring certification for PEO’s we see how important it is to accept this change. Being certified will allow greater assurance to the marketplace, which includes insurance companies, current and future business clients and regulators.  The criteria for the certification the PEO gets will be based on the PEO’s ongoing performance. Please contact us in January for an update.

The Colorado Department of Labor just announced the new minimum wage rate for 2009

The minimum wage rule enacted in 2006 to the Colorado Constitution requires the state’s minimum wage rate to be adjusted each year for inflation. The inflation adjustment is based on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley combined area. This adjustment is based on the difference between the CPI-U from the first half of the prior year and the first half of the current year. The CPI-U increased 3.7% from the first half of 2007 compared to the first half of 2008.  This adjustment will increase the 2009 minimum wage rate to $7.28 per hour, effective January 1, 2009.  The Tip credit for 2009 has not changed so the minimum wage rate for "Tipped Employees" will be $4.26 ($7.28 - $3.02).

For More information please go to the Colorado Department of Labor’s home page at: www.coworkforce.com.

Colorado’s choice for Workers CompensationIf you have listened to a morning radio show over the past few weeks you probably have heard the Pinnacol Assurance radio add. During the add they mention that Pinnacol is the choice of Colorado when it comes to workers compensation insurance. In fact Pinnacol has over 50% of the states employers and employees covered. StaffScapes uses Pinnacol for all it’s Colorado workers compensation needs and has developed a great working relationship. If you are looking to start a business in Colorado or thinking of changing coverage to Pinnacol contact StaffScapes and we can help you acquire the coverage that your business needs.

See Also

• Advantage of StaffScapes Workers Compensation Program
  Workers Compensation

Thursday October 2nd, labor and business leaders came to an agreement to pull four anti-business amendments from the ballot.

With only a few hours left, before a 5pm deadline, labor and business leaders delivered letters to the Colorado Secretary of State withdrawing four amendments that would have negatively affected Colorado’s economy. To get the labor leaders to drop four anti-business amendments, business leaders had to promise to raise $3 million for labor campaigns for use in fighting three anti-union amendments on the ballot. The four anti-business amendments will still appear on the ballots however the votes will not be counted toward passing these new measures.

Subway seized in Broomfield for less than $3000 in taxes

I just posted a comment on Dave Taylor’s blog site intuitive.com about a local Subway shop being seized by the City of Broomfield for less than $3k.

With the tough times some business are having it is very important to remember to set aside the tax money that is due each week or month. With an employer needing to match the FICA deduction, collect sales taxes and maintain funds for workers compensation it can be a tough decision on what to do with that income, do I buy meats and cheese for my Subway or do I pay my taxes?

For Dave’s complete blog and to view the other comments click on the link below.

See Also

• Business Blog at intuitive.com
  subway siezed
• Dave Taylor
  Intuituve,com home page