Savannah River Site Per Diem

[uRiaL]

You're absolutely right Content1.Someone has to have some common sense n this world.I must be letting the radiation get to me .Nuff said

[BetaAnt]

Local news broke this yesterday but it still has not hit the print media yet. SRS is busting people for fraudulent per diem and collecting it back LUMP SUM 

http://wjbf.com/ar/1424949/?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d4d788036e8b0a4%2C0

Like the DeNuke description reads "Documentation required and proof of eligibility to receive per diem must be flawless." Federal prosecution is optional.

Not a good day at SRS.

BA 

[RP Instructor]

http://www.aikenstandard.com/Local/0204-SRS-embezzlement

Three charged with embezzling from DOE
2/4/2011 12:09 AM
By ANNA DOLIANITIS
Staff writer

Three Savannah River Site contract employees were charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office for embezzlement charges related to fraudulent per diem expenses to the Department of Energy during their employment at SRS.

Yep....I'd be lining-up a lawyer right about now if I scammed SRS for per diem.

[BetaAnt]

Instead of per diem, RATs should demand a relocation package and a firm contract. 

But, who am I to fool, THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN! 

Caveat emptor 

BA 

[Content1]

Can someone explain what is difference about SRS and per diem or subsistence compared with other traveling sites.   What about the 1 year limits before per diem is taxable, any changes to this?  If a spouse cannot get per diem together, why not legally separate before you go?

[techtoolong]

Word on the street is the attorney general has been asking questions at West Valley also.   The question is not about taxes but eligibility to receive it in the first place.  It seems like there is more than one audit going on.  In the commercial world Duke Power is also auditing per diem. There where arrests at Plum Brook a few years ago but never heard the outcome.

[Content1]

I read the post for this thread and one parts does not make sense.   The reason why a person would travel is to get per diem to offset the travel costs.   When you leave your home area to go to an away job, you must have a home to qualify in the first place.  Yet, I get from the posts that when you leave your home area to take a job like at SRS, your ability to work at home is ended for the time you are away.   Say you stay 11 months at a temporary position, when the IRS audits they will claim that you working area is the new area because you are not working back home?  Unless I get the Star Trek transporter, going to one place precludes being at another.   Is this some IRS catch 22 situation, you can't win or there is no way to follow the rules if time away from home exceeds 6 month, making the new location you primary work location?   Sound crazy if this is the interpretation?  If it was, the longest assignment away from home would be 6 months.   Defeat the whole idea of per diem.   Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but if the law is so convoluted as to make how to follow it unclear any reasonable jury would let you off.   I would if such a case came before me.

[Sun Dog]

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but if the law is so convoluted as to make how to follow it unclear any reasonable jury would let you off.   I would if such a case came before me.

Brilliant!

Juror #3 in deliberations - - -"Hey, we all know he broke the law but the law was wasn't written clear enough for that embezzling bastard to understand!!  The hell with those instructions the Judge gave us, I vote not guilty!!!"

OJ would love your logic.

[Content1]

In a criminal trial it is "guilty beyond reasonable doubt."   As a juror I would have lots of doubt.   You did not answer my question, that is at what point does you "trip" convert you to having moved you place of work.  I see lots of reasonable doubt here on the rules if I am given the answer "See a professional." 

I get a call for a job, I go there and I stay less than a year, I come home, take a different job somewhere else.   Later in the year I come back after a reasonable time at a different job.   It seems like I am not skirting the law here, only trying to follow it.  It is legal as one supreme court judge said: Court ruling: You can structure tax affairs to pay the least tax http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page295168?oid=492156&sn=2009+Detail.   

So if I am planning my affairs trying to pay the least tax legally, the attack later by the IRS or anyone else is wrong.   You should be able to go to a job and not have a "roll of the dice" that maybe you are a criminal, maybe you are not.  If that is truly the case eventually you will have no travelers.

[Smart People]

I get a call for a job, I go there and I stay less than a year, I come home, take a different job somewhere else.   Later in the year I come back after a reasonable time at a different job.   It seems like I am not skirting the law here, only trying to follow it.  It is legal as one supreme court judge said: Court ruling: You can structure tax affairs to pay the least tax http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page295168?oid=492156&sn=2009+Detail.   

Is that what happened? I don't see a lot of details on the case. Maybe you can link us to a better description.

[hamsamich]

Yeah I see what you are getting at content, I think the point is the odds on some rolls are WAY more favorable than other rolls.  And you might be better off betting less too.

[Content1]

Is that what happened? I don't see a lot of details on the case. Maybe you can link us to a better description.

Keeping in mind the one year limit for per diem away from home to the same away site general rule.

If you read all the earlier posts it talked of people being charged with fraud, and other posts spoke that if you work away from your home most of the year, you lose your residency at your home even if you are still living in it off season in less than a years time.    For me personally,  I spoke to someone from the IRS asking before I took my first long term DOE site and this person told me if I maintained my home and the assignment was told to be less then a year I was OK, and especially if I did not return to that site after a break but went some place else I was OK.   What the posts here seem to imply if you do not have actual work in your home location greater then the away location you are committing fraud somehow if the IRS audited you.   I replied the act of trying to limit your taxes is not an attempt at fraud but an allowable doctrine from Supreme Court decisions.   I finally state if you are doing everything you can short of simply giving up and not accepting per diem, it should not come down to something like a "roll of the dice" that you will be accused of committing fraud by someone in the future when you are following the rules.   If it comes to that you will lose all your travelers.   I hope that make it clear my concern.  This whole site is dedicated to travelers who for all but a few, are not trying to skirt the laws and shouldn't live in such uncertainty of what the rules are.

[techtoolong]

I am confused as to why everyone keeps bringing up the IRS. This is not tax fraud.  The issue is not maintaining a home residence and collecting per diem. You can pay taxes on the per diem but if you own a home near the site or do not have a legitimate residence some where else you are not entitled to the $$$$ in the first place.

[Smart People]

So my question is "Is that what happened with these guys?" We can throw out a ton of conjecture. But your argument seems like it came from the hay bales.

Was it just an issue of the job lasting more than a year and an issue of loss of residency? Or was it more like Plum Brook where people actually lived 30 miles away?

A charge of fraud usually has to show some intent.

[Already Gone]

Honestly (I used that word intentionally) it is not difficult to remain within the law where per diem is concerned.  Those who are finding it difficult are those who are attempting to manipulate or circumvent the law using flimsy logic and conveniently ignoring the parts of the law that they don't like.

True, we are talking about different laws - not just the tax law.  Where can you get hurt?  Well, if you receive payments that should be taxed, and you didn't pay the tax, you end up in debt to the IRS.
If the IRS finds that you were trying to evade taxation, you end up in criminal court.  If your employer, or their client, decides that you were claiming payments of any kind that you weren't eligible to receive, you may be charged with fraud or embezzlement.  Some people will be facing all three.  Most people will face none of them, because they are honest.

Morality and legality are two separate concepts.  Often they do not overlap.  But, a simple rule of thumb for those who don't wish to keep a lawyer on retainer full-time is that if you feel the need to rationalize your actions, you are probably breaking the law.  If the phrase "I deserve it" ever crosses your mind, it is almost certain that you told yourself that to justify the fact that you have no legal right to it.

You know if you are doing the right thing or not.  People who ask for advice are really looking for an accomplice.  So, if you need a lawyer to tell you whether you should be getting per diem, you probably should not.

[Content1]

Honestly (I used that word intentionally) it is not difficult to remain within the law where per diem is concerned.  Those who are finding it difficult are those who are attempting to manipulate or circumvent the law using flimsy logic and conveniently ignoring the parts of the law that they don't like.

True, we are talking about different laws - not just the tax law.  Where can you get hurt?  Well, if you receive payments that should be taxed, and you didn't pay the tax, you end up in debt to the IRS.
If the IRS finds that you were trying to evade taxation, you end up in criminal court.  If your employer, or their client, decides that you were claiming payments of any kind that you weren't eligible to receive, you may be charged with fraud or embezzlement.  Some people will be facing all three.  Most people will face none of them, because they are honest.

Morality and legality are two separate concepts.  Often they do not overlap.  But, a simple rule of thumb for those who don't wish to keep a lawyer on retainer full-time is that if you feel the need to rationalize your actions, you are probably breaking the law.  If the phrase "I deserve it" ever crosses your mind, it is almost certain that you told yourself that to justify the fact that you have no legal right to it.

You know if you are doing the right thing or not.  People who ask for advice are really looking for an accomplice.  So, if you need a lawyer to tell you whether you should be getting per diem, you probably should not.

You get offered a job away from your home.   Your travel to it.   You work there under a year.   You come home.   You take a job some place else.   The traveling tech's life in a nutshell and I hope it is that simple.    You do not travel looking for trouble.   Your goal is to legally earn as much as possible and keep of much of it as you can.   Nobody is looking to be dishonest.   We just want to follow the rules, and stay out of trouble.   I have always been told you do NOT have to report left over per diem  or travel pay.   If you can save some of this money due to better money management practices, why should you not be able to keep it?   Some of the posts put that in question.  If everything I say in this paragraph is a correct assumption, being honest and following the law are the same thing.   If there is some sort of trap in what I am describing, only then I have a concern.   I no longer travel, my daughters do and always want then to follow the law and be honest at the same time. 

[Already Gone]

You get offered a job away from your home.   Your travel to it.   You work there under a year.   You come home.   You take a job some place else.   The traveling tech's life in a nutshell and I hope it is that simple.    You do not travel looking for trouble.   Your goal is to legally earn as much as possible and keep of much of it as you can.   Nobody is looking to be dishonest.   We just want to follow the rules, and stay out of trouble.   I have always been told you do NOT have to report left over per diem  or travel pay.   If you can save some of this money due to better money management practices, why should you not be able to keep it?   Some of the posts put that in question.  If everything I say in this paragraph is a correct assumption, being honest and following the law are the same thing.   If there is some sort of trap in what I am describing, only then I have a concern.   I no longer travel, my daughters do and always want then to follow the law and be honest at the same time. 

Honesty and following the law are not necessarily the same thing, but being honest makes it easier to stay within the law.
If your activities are as you describe them, no problem.
Unsubstantiated reimbursements have to be reported as income.  If you receive a per diem allowance, and that allowance is at or below the GSA rate, then the allowance itself is substantiation of the expense.  If the GSA rate is $123, and you get $90 per day (under an accountable plan), you do not need receipts to show that you had $90/day in expenses.  You do not need to return or report any incidental excess that may be left over from that $90.
The problems arise when the person who is in the situation above tries to deduct the $33 difference as an expense (Lots of people do it.  They are breaking the law.) Also, it is trouble when the person has worked at the same site year after year, never working at any other place for nearly as much time, probably owns a house there or has a lease on one, perhaps brings the wife and kids along, yet still collects per diem there.
Your assertion that nobody is looking to be dishonest, and that "we" just want to follow the rules may be true about you and some of the people you know, but it is certainly not true of all the traveling nukeworkers.  The industry is infested with people who use non-existent technicalities within the law to justify improper payments of per diem or illegal tax deductions.  That is not the same as keeping the few measly bucks left over from your properly paid per diem allowance.  They are going to get caught; they are going to ruin everything for all the honest people, and before long we'll all be submitting expense reports with receipts for every meal.  We'll be going through a pile of paperwork every week just to get reimbursed penny-for-penny for the expenses we can prove.  There won't be any excess to bank, and it won't be worth the headache to keep track of every little expense.
It is already happening.  That is the point of this whole thread.  A few scammers have called attention to per diem payments to everyone.  They have everyone under the microscope for the deeds of a few.  Every time this happens, everybody pays the price.

[Content1]

I think you cleared it up.  Thank you for taking the time.

[Fixin2]

Whatever you do, don't ever work for Weirich, Inc.  They have not paid anyone at SRS PD since October. Yes, they are three months behind.  Bob Weirich wants to blame it on SRNS, but I think he doesn't have the money to operate his business so he takes himself a free loan from employees.  Same with 401k.  After a 401k deduction is taken from your check, it is months before he deposits it into your 401k account.  I know people he owes $20,000+ between 401k and PD.

[HydroDave63]

I know people he owes $20,000+ between 401k and PD.

So why haven't they already called US Treasury Dept.?

[techtoolong]

or the local prosecutor ?  And why are these people still there ?

[Sun Dog]

I know people he owes $20,000+ between 401k and PD.

An employee who allows an employer to amass $20K in non-payment is a fool.

[Already Gone]

I could maybe let it slide for a week, but I would be on the phone looking to line up another job just in case.  No check by the next payday, and I'm outta there.  Staying and waiting for the money to show up is throwing good money after bad.

[OldHP]

I could maybe let it slide for a week, but I would be on the phone looking to line up another job just in case.  No check by the next payday, and I'm outta there.  Staying and waiting for the money to show up is throwing good money after bad.

Employees need to check their standing with the IRS & SSA also because he probably is not forwarding withheld payments to them also.  Shades of the day when Jerry Donahoe bought IRM and wanted more income for himself.  Folks wanted to blame Bobby, but he didn't even own the company anymore.

[vikingfan]

but I think he doesn't have the money to operate his business so he takes himself a free loan from employees.  Same with 401k.  After a 401k deduction is taken from your check, it is months before he deposits it into your 401k account. 

Kinda sounds like the days of ARC back in the mid 90's