Jogeephus":5gzc8g3t said:
I'm glad they did. I don't know where this will go but if I was one of these farmers I'd be really pizzed. The way I understood it is the IRS is after the taxes on these from the farmers even though these profits were stolen from them and they never benefited. If this is right, this is just wrong. I watched a lady lose her business because of something similar where her bookkeeper - a private contractor not an employee - embezzled all the tax money and the IRS held her responsible. I found that really unsettling because had the tax code not been so complicated she would have never had to hire and trust a bookkeeper. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of this.
I'm not a tax expert but my general understanding is that the buck always stops with the person/entity owing the tax. That's why there's a long history of musicians (Willie Nelson, Springsteen, many others) having to work for years essentially for "free," just to pay off back taxes their managers didn't pay (or out-and-out stole). To me, that usually makes sense: it incentivizes the taxpayer to make sure they're hiring good people and paying attention. Otherwise, you and I have to pay more because others weren't taking sufficient care/responsibility. But yes, at the margins it does result in some iniquity