this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
61 points (96.9% liked)

InsanePeopleFacebook

2695 readers
362 users here now

Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 67 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

It is my understanding that awarded stocks are taxed as direct income at the time the stocks vest because that is essentially what it is. It's money they gave you, but bought stocks with it on your behalf. If it is vested and public, it is yours to do with as you will, including selling immediately and just collecting your money straight up (no capital gains because no growth, all principal). If you hold it until it becomes worthless, that is no different then buying any other stock and holding it. Your tax burden should be partially offset by the capital losses, though.

They say that they could not sell it. That either means that it wasn't yet vested (there is often a period, like a year, before the awarded stocks from your employer vests), in which case they are correct that they shouldn't owe income tax on it until it vests. OR, and I suspect this is the case, they either misunderstood or were lied to by their employer about what they could do with that stock. If it was vested, they owe income tax on it. If they were lied to, there may be civil recourse they could take against the employer. But if they just misunderstood and sat on stock until it was worthless, that's just their fault.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 4 months ago (1 children)

At minimum this guy needs to hire a tax attorney.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 20 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Ideally one whose law education goes beyond the magna carta

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Ideally one whose law education goes beyond the magna carta coloring book

[–] JohnnyH842 6 points 4 months ago

"Is this a maritime court?"

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that was where my mind was going to.

Given how loopy SovCits are, it wouldn't be impossible that the husband told the spouse that they couldn't sell, just so the spouse wouldn't dump the stock and do something stupid with the money, like committing financial fraud. Normally that would be a good idea. But if the company is now bankrupt, then holding the stock puts them on the hook for the taxes.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 13 points 4 months ago

I hadn't considered willful stupidity/ misleading by the husband. That does seem very within the realm of possibility with these types.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago

Oh look it’s not child support this time.

[–] FlyingSquid 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Lurking for a few years? Yeah, this person is super fucked if they haven't figured out this SovCit thing is all bullshit and they haven't even asked any questions until now.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon 17 points 4 months ago

A lot of the time people will ask such questions, and a lot of the answers are "you need to study more". Like it's so obvious none of them have a clue.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Is ASN American Sovereign National?

[–] BonesOfTheMoon 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] Hawke 10 points 4 months ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Ah, thanks.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I'm assuming they don't mean Asian

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

They can tell the IRS to go pound sand right now!

I mean, that's a stupid idea given their situation, but stupid ideas are the kind of ideas they seem to be into.