If you employ people in the State of South Carolina, make sure you are aware of the E-Verify requirements that went into effect on January 1, 2012. Below is a copy of the notice from the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

NOTICE TO ALL SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYERS:

You Must Verify All New Hires through E-Verify Effective January 1, 2012

Amendments to the “South Carolina Illegal Immigration and Reform Act” were signed into law by Governor Nikki Haley on June 27, 2011. The amended law requires all employers to enroll in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system beginning January 1, 2012 and to verify the legal status of all new employees through E-Verify within three business days. Failure to enroll in and use E-Verify to verify new hires will result in probation for the employer or suspension/revocation of the employer’s business licenses.

Verification Requirements

In addition to completing and maintaining the federal employment eligibility verification form, more commonly known as the Form I-9, all South Carolina employers must within three business days after employing a new employee:

1. Verify the employee’s work authorization through the E-Verify federal work authorization program administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

2. Employers may no longer confirm a new employee’s employment authorization with a driver’s license or state identification card.

E-Verify

E-Verify is a free Internet-based system maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. E-Verify compares the information an employee provides on Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, against millions of government records maintained by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. The database generally provides results in three to five seconds. If the information matches, the employee is eligible to work in the United States. If there’s a mismatch, E-Verify will alert the employer and the employee will be allowed to work while he or she resolves the problem. To enroll in E-Verify, go to www.dhs.gov/e-verify.

License

Under the law, all private employers in South Carolina are imputed a South Carolina employment license which permits a private employer to employ a person in the state. A private employer may not employ a person unless the private employer’s South Carolina employment license and any other applicable licenses as defined in Section 41-8-10 are in effect and are not suspended or revoked. Under Section 41-8-10, a “license” means an agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter, or similar form of authorization that is required by law and that is issued by any agency political subdivision of the state for the purpose of operating a business in the state. Professional licenses are excluded, but “license” includes employment licenses, articles of organization, articles of incorporation, a certificate of partnership, a partnership registration, a certificate to transact business, or similar forms of authorization issued by the South Carolina Secretary of State, and any transaction privilege tax license.

Employment of Unauthorized Alien Prohibited

Section 41-8-30 provides that a private employer who knowingly or intentionally employs an unauthorized alien violates the private employer’s licenses.

Enforcement

The South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (LLR) is charged with investigating complaints and conducting random audits of private employers to assure compliance. The agency must: (1) notify the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of suspected unauthorized aliens employed by a private employer; and (2) notify state and local law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing state immigration laws.

Failure to Comply

For a first occurrence by a private employer, prior to July 1, 2012, of failure to verify a new hire through the E-Verify federal work authorization program within three business days, an employer must swear or affirm in writing to the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation that the employer has complied with the provisions of the federal law covering employment of unauthorized aliens (8 U.S.C. Section 1324a) from January 1, 2012 until notification by LLR of a violation, and comply with the state law on verification of new hires within three business days.

For a first occurrence by a private employer, after July 1, 2012, of failure to verify a new hire through the E-Verify federal work authorization program within three business days, the Department of LLR must place the employer on probation for a period of one year, during which time the private employer must submit quarterly reports to the agency demonstrating compliance with the law. A subsequent violation within three years of the law’s verification requirements must result in the suspension of the private employer’s licenses for at least 10 days but not more than 30 days.

A private employer who knowingly or intentionally employs an unauthorized alien must have his licenses suspended by the Department of LLR on a first occurrence for at least 10 days but not more than 30 days. During the period of suspension, the private employer may not engage in business, open to the public, employ an employee, or otherwise operate. The private employer’s licenses are reinstated when the employer demonstrates that the unauthorized alien has been terminated, and pays a reinstatement fee equal to the cost of investigating and enforcing the matter, not to exceed $1,000. For a second occurrence, the employer’s licenses must be suspended for at least 30 days but not more than 60 days. Following a third occurrence, the private employer’s licenses are revoked.

Chad is a Charlotte CPA who works with small business owners and invidiuals on a monthly basis to provide them with proactive guidance and advice on how to grow their business, minimize their tax liabilities and grow their bottom line. You can find our more about Chad by visiting his profile here: Chad Bordeaux

Last Thursday, cellphone carrier Verizon Wireless announced a new $2 fee for one-time payments made online or over the phone. On Friday, the Federal Communications Commission immediately announced they were “concerned about Verizon’s actions” and planned to look into the matter. At the same time, over 158,000 visitors signed an online petition demanding that Verizon drop the fee. In fact, the website hosting the petition expressed shock that “while you are instituting this new fee, Verizon paid zero federal income tax from 2008-2010, and actually got almost a billion dollars in rebates from taxpayers.” Verizon immediately beat a hasty retreat and dropped the proposed fee.

Verizon is hardly the only corporate giant to float new fees, only to see them immediately fall back to earth. Back in September, Bank of America announced plans to charge a $5 monthly fee for customers making debit card purchases — then, after howls of customer protest, backed off just five weeks later. Other banks, which had tested similar debit card fees, killed their fees too in the wake of the protests.

There’s a pattern developing here. In today’s struggling economy, companies can’t impose the broad-based price hikes they really want. So they settle for nickel-and-diming us with junk fees. Unfortunately for them, consumers are pushing back — and at least with Verizon and the banks, the customers are winning.

There’s a similar pattern at work in today’s Washington. Candidates can talk ’till they’re blue in the face about bold sweeping change, like Rick Perry’s 20% flat tax and Herman Cain’s attention-grabbing “9-9-9″ plan. (If you close your eyes right now, I bet you can still hear Cain saying “9-9-9″ in your head.) But in today’s hyper-partisan Congress, the actual legislators in charge of implementing all those bright ideas can’t find the consensus to name a Post Office, let alone remake the tax code in any meaningful way. So they settle for nickel-and-diming the system — extending the payroll tax holiday for a miserly 60 days instead of a full year, and paying for it by levying fees on mortgages sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rather than by raising taxes on million-dollar earners.

Even when legislators extend new breaks, they tend to be for small amounts, like the $800 “Making Work Pay” credit or $1,500 for home energy improvements. New tax breaks also tend to be short-lived: the 2009 deduction for sales tax on new cars lasted 10½ months, and the much-ballyhooed “Cash for Clunkers” program lasted just 56 days.

The problem, of course, is that Washington’s version of nickel-and-diming us adds up fast. A couple of bucks for online bill payments here and $5 for monthly debit-card usage there? Maybe it cuts into your Starbucks budget. But closing tax breaks hurts. As former Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen famously said, “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.” And IRS “customers” can’t threaten to take their “business” somewhere else like customers at the bank.

2012 is an election year, of course, which means we can expect even less in the way of substantive action — at least for the next 10 months. But that may all change after November 6, as the Bush tax cuts expire after December 31. If the upcoming election leaves Washington as divided as it is now, we can expect a repeat of last summer’s debt-ceiling battle. Our job is to keep on top of all the news to safeguard your nickels and dimes, regardless of what happens in November. And that means planning. Remember, being proactive, now, is the key to keeping your tax bill as low as possible in 2012 and beyond. So, if one of your New Year’s resolutions is to get out in front of the tax nickel-and-dimers, give us a call!

New Year’s day is almost here, and for millions of Americans, that means college football bowl games. Fans and alumni across the country are gearing up to root for their favorite school. LSU fans cry “Geaux Tigers!” ‘Bama fans chant “Roll, Tide, Roll!” But only one team will be champion come January 9.

Regardless of which gridiron gladiators we support for the BCS championship, Americans are #1 in another competition. That’s right, Americans cheat their government out of more tax dollars than the citizens of any other country in the world!

A recent study by the Tax Justice Network, a British think-tank dedicated to transparency in international finance, shows the U.S. government lost $337 billion annually to tax evasion. We’re followed by Brazil ($280 billion), Italy ($238 billion), Russia, Germany, France, Japan, China, U.K., and Spain. Overall, the study finds that worldwide tax evasion tops $3 trillion, or 5% of the world’s economy.

However, while Americans are #1 in absolute dollars lost to cheating, we’re not actually the biggest fibbers. The report attempts to quantify the size of each country’s “shadow economy” that hides from official view to avoid tax. Russia is the biggest loser here, with 44% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lurking underground and evading tax. Brazil is next, with 39% of its economy hiding in the shadows. Our own shadow economy, at 8.6% of GDP, is actually the smallest of those top ten tax evaders listed above.

Looking at it from a different perspective, next to the cost of financing government, the cost of financing health care is perhaps our country’s biggest fiscal challenge. The Tax Justice Network’s report draws an interesting contrast between each country’s cost of tax cheating and cost of health care. Worldwide tax evasion costs an average of 55% of worldwide health care costs. But that average encompasses an enormous range. Here in the U.S., for example, tax evasion drains the equivalent of just 15% of our national health care budget. By contrast, in Bolivia, where the “shadow economy” accounts for 66% of GDP, tax evasion costs that nation more than four times the amount of their annual health care spending.

American tax cheats may even show a conscientious side. The Charities Aid Foundation, a British organization dedicated to encouraging efficient charitable giving, just released their World Giving Index 2011 report. They found that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving, out of 153 countries surveyed. “Using data from Gallup’s Worldview World Poll,” the report says, “the results show that the USA is officially the most charitable nation in the world.” Now there’s something we can all take pride in this holiday season!

The irony here is that there are so many legal ways to pay less tax that nobody needs to cheat. Proactive planning is the key to paying less tax without having to hide in the shadows. As 2012 dawns, remember that we’re here to deliver that planning — for you, and for your family, friends, and colleagues as well.

Last year’s federal budget deficit topped $1.48 billion. With money so tight, you’d expect government to focus its efforts on those who really need the help. But that’s far from the case, according to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. Last month, he released a 37-page report entitled Subsidies of the Rich and Famous, outlining “sheer Washington stupidity” that he claims costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

The first part of Coburn’s report focuses on direct payments like Social Security and Medicare benefits, unemployment benefits, and farm subsidies. (NBA star Scottie Pippen, rocker Bruce Springsteen, and billionaire broadcaster Ted Turner have all gotten federal farm subsidies.) But Coburn also heaps his scorn on specific tax breaks that he calls a “reverse Robin Hood style of wealth distribution.” He claims he’s not interested in raising rates on anyone. And he cautions against demonizing “those who are successful.” But he does want to means-test benefits, close loopholes, and limit deductions that pamper millionaires with “unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs.”

What sort of tax breaks have Senator Coburn so upset? Here are three:

• “Subsidizing Millionaires’ Mansions”: For 2009, 143,441 out of the 235,413 taxpayers reporting incomes over $1 million claimed mortgage interest deductions, averaging $30,995 each.

• Rental Expense Deduction: 69,074 of those million-dollar earners claimed a total of $12.5 billion in rental property expenses, including mortgage interest, cleaning and maintenance, and depreciation.

• Gambling Losses Deduction: Finally, 8,225 of the top earners reported a total of $4.2 billion in gambling losses.

Coburn’s points seem reasonable at first glance. Does Oprah Winfrey really “need” a tax break for her $50 million California mansion? Should Vegas high-rollers count on us to bail them out when the dice come up snake eyes? On closer look, however, his objections may not hold up. The mortgage interest deduction, for example, is already limited to interest on $1 million of “acquisition indebtedness” on a primary residence and one additional residence, plus $100,000 of home equity indebtedness. Coburn would ditch the deductions for second homes and home equity interest, and drop the overall cap to $500,000 of indebtedness. But critics respond that over 11% of American homes are valued over $500,000, and limiting the deduction would cut home prices off at the knees at a time when they need all the support they can get.

Coburn’s objections to deducting rental real estate expenses and even gambling losses seem to make less sense. Paying tax on gross rents and gambling winnings? Rental real estate losses are already limited by “passive activity” rules. If millionaires can’t deduct their rental real estate expenses, they won’t invest in real estate at all. That would drag prices down in the same way as limiting mortgage interest deductions. And gambling losses are deductible only to the extent of gambling winnings. Is it fair to tax anyone, millionaire or not, on gross winnings without letting them net out losses?

As the economy continues to struggle, Washington gridlock intensifies — just look at the bickering over the payroll tax cut extension, which both parties say they want. And the 2012 presidential election draws near, we can expect to hear more rhetoric like Coburn’s. What do you think? Do tax breaks for millionaires offend your sense of fairness? Or should millionaires get to take advantage of the same rules as the rest of us?