Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Federal Retirees


For those approaching retirement as well as the currently already retired, here is a forum to share ideas and thoughts and exchange questions and answers.


To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.

To maximize your retirement, we also suggest you read "Retired Federal Employees Almanac".


(Reminder: soliciting of services is not allowed on this site.)

7 Pages«<23456>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Taxes-101  
#61 Posted : Monday, December 29, 2014 8:06:13 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
The COMPLAINT filing with the Court is what begins the case.
Below is the wording as who is the "PLAINTIFF:"

My Name
Individually, and on behalf of all
Virginia CSRS-pensioner taxpayers
similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
Taxes-101  
#62 Posted : Wednesday, December 31, 2014 10:27:04 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Final version of the Complaint Includes:
A. Violation of 4 USC 111 (discrimination against Federal Employees)
B. Violation of Section 1; 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (equal treatment under the law).

PRESS RELEASES scheduled to go out on Monday January 5, 2015 to the Washington DC news papers, Virginia news papers and a few others. 145 by email... 16 by printed mail.

Should be interesting.
freeageless  
#63 Posted : Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:12:37 PM(UTC)
freeageless

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/20/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,415

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Taxes-101 Go to Quoted Post
Final version of the Complaint Includes:
A. Violation of 4 USC 111 (discrimination against Federal Employees)
B. Violation of Section 1; 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (equal treatment under the law).

PRESS RELEASES scheduled to go out on Monday January 5, 2015 to the Washington DC news papers, Virginia news papers and a few others. 145 by email... 16 by printed mail.

Should be interesting.


Your lawyers may want to double check and make sure that it is the 14th Amendment that applies and not the 5th Amendment's equal protection provisions. For example in federal employees cases claiming equal protection violations, it is the 5th Amendment's equal protection provisions that apply. See: http://www.lawnix.com/cases/adarand-pena.html. See also: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

Edited by user Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:30:49 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Taxes-101  
#64 Posted : Thursday, January 8, 2015 9:42:10 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
PRESS RELEASE; January 8, 2015

SUBJECT: $1.0 Billion Tax LAW SUIT FILED; STATE: VIRGINIA
RE: FEDERAL RETIREES; UNLAWFUL VIRGINIA INCOME TAX
FOR: Violation of Federal Law: 4 U.S.C. § 111 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Violation of U.S. Constitution: Amendment XIV; Section 1
COMPLAINT Filed and Recorded by Court is ATTACHED!
www.CSRStax.com: For IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 8, 2015: A Class Action law suit was filed against the Commonwealth of Virginia for breach of Federal Law sited above. If successful, the suit will save Virginia CSRS pensioners $1.0 Billion over 20 years (3 past years + future years)! Plaintiff, Karl Beisel alleges Virginia’s income tax policy and practice discriminates against Federal Retirees retired under the CSRS retirement system (CSRS=Civil Service Retirement System). The practice causes CSRS retirees to pay significantly more income tax than their peers and other citizens of Virginia. The Plaintiff stated that the State exempts retirement payments (typically for those at age 62+) sourced from the Social Security Administration while granting no comparable exemption for those sourced from the CSRS system. Plaintiff states that as a CSRS-covered employee, he and others covered by that system paid into the CSRS fund over their working careers in lieu of paying into the Social Security fund. And thus did not earn Social Security eligibility payments which are exempt from Virginia’s income tax. Further, plaintiff alleges that the CSRS system is an alternate Social Security system for CSRS Federal employees administered by the Federal Government just as payments into and from the Social Security system are administered by the Federal Government’s Social Security Administration. Plaintiff also stated that the CSRS system pre-dates the creation of the Social Security Administration’s system, that the two systems are effectively the same and that no rational or reasonable basis for discriminatory treatment exists. Thus CSRS retirees are discriminated against and Virginia is in Violation of Law, specifically: 4 U.S.C. §111, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and Section 1, Amendment 14 of the U.S. Constitution: Equal Treatment Under the Law. Plaintiff seeks a Virginia income tax refund for each of the past THREE YEARS comparable to values that would have resulted if he had made payments to the Social Security Administration’s system (vs. CSRS system). Further, plaintiff seeks a comparable tax exemption for all future years.

Plaintiff states that the Virginia has a history of such discrimination that was only partially stopped in the early 1990’s via “Henry HARPER, et al., Petitioners, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION. 509 U.S. 86 (113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74)” and that the state simply continues to discriminate in another way. Plaintiff states that the Virginia in its unlawful practice discriminates by overtaxing CSRS Federal Retiree seniors in their autumn years! These seniors are being abused by the State and are unable to speak up and defend themselves! The Plaintiff encourages others to join the suit (on contingency of recovered taxes) to stop the alleged unlawful acts of Virginia. Plaintiff has created a website explaining the issue: www.CSRStax.com. Plaintiff is represented by: Carrell Blanton Ferries – Attorneys at Law; Richmond, Virginia; email: mdonner@carellblanton.com phone: 804-285-7900.

I'm trying to post this press release and the COMPLAINT (NOW RECORDED BY THE COURT) on the website. But it's not so easy.
Taxes-101  
#65 Posted : Thursday, January 8, 2015 10:46:24 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
PRESS RELEASE of Jan 8, 2015 is on the website: csrstax.com
COMPLAINT Recorded with the Court is on the website: csrstax.com
Taxes-101  
#66 Posted : Monday, January 12, 2015 1:11:35 PM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Jan 12, 2015:
GovExec Magazine has a story about the lawsuit on its website... under pay and benefits tab:

FYI:
http://www.govexec.com/p...x-discrimination/102657/
Taxes-101  
#67 Posted : Thursday, January 15, 2015 9:53:12 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
File a "Protective Claim" format has been posted to the website.

Virginia allows you to go back 3 years to adjust income taxes.
However if what you are doing is dependent on a court case,
You can file a "Protective Claim" that will protect your claim beyond 3 years.
I suggest all those interested to file the claim for 2013, 2012 and 2011.
It's a simple one page file in the blanks and mail.
Virginia has no specific form, just an outline of required info which the posting gives you.
Website: csrstax.com csrstax dot com
Taxes-101  
#68 Posted : Friday, January 23, 2015 8:38:53 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
This case is now IN THE COURTS!

WHAT'S NEXT: We are waiting for the State to respond to the COMPLAINT.
Response is due approx. Jan 30, 2015.

Also... Website is updated with a graph of CSRS vs. FERS retires with projection going out many years.
CSRS retirees are already disappearing. Already, 20% of Fed Retirees are FERS (80% CSRS).
CSRS retirees will become insignificant in about 19 years when CSRS retirees will be less than 10% of all Fed retirees. At that point 90% of Fed retires will be FERS system retirees.
Website is: csrstax.com csrstax dot com.
Taxes-101  
#69 Posted : Monday, February 9, 2015 10:07:25 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
A HEARING is scheduled for March 4, 2015.
This is in response to the State of Virginia's "Demurrer Answer" to the complaint.
It effectively states that the State does not have enough info to make a decision and needs more info.
But we do not yet have a hard copy of the filing. When we have it, it will be posted to the website for all to read: www.csrstax.com csrstax dot com.
thanks 1 user thanked Taxes-101 for this useful post.
freeageless on 2/9/2015(UTC)
freeageless  
#70 Posted : Monday, February 9, 2015 12:33:34 PM(UTC)
freeageless

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/20/2006(UTC)
Posts: 1,415

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Taxes-101 Go to Quoted Post
A HEARING is scheduled for March 4, 2015.
This is in response to the State of Virginia's "Demurrer Answer" to the complaint.
It effectively states that the State does not have enough info to make a decision and needs more info.
But we do not yet have a hard copy of the filing. When we have it, it will be posted to the website for all to read: www.csrstax.com csrstax dot com.


Taxes101, thank you very much for keeping us updated. I sure hope that we win. Do you think that the State realizes or thinks that we may have a case, and is trying to decide what to do?

TheRealOrange  
#71 Posted : Tuesday, February 10, 2015 4:48:02 AM(UTC)
TheRealOrange

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 899

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Originally Posted by: freeageless Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Taxes-101 Go to Quoted Post
A HEARING is scheduled for March 4, 2015.
This is in response to the State of Virginia's "Demurrer Answer" to the complaint. It effectively states that the State does not have enough info to make a decision and needs more info. But we do not yet have a hard copy of the filing. When we have it, it will be posted to the website for all to read: www.csrstax.com csrstax dot com.


Taxes101, thank you very much for keeping us updated. I sure hope that we win. Do you think that the State realizes or thinks that we may have a case, and is trying to decide what to do?


A demurrer admits all material and relevant facts as alleged in the pleading it responds to, and is generally considered a motion to dismiss. Note that a demurrer admits the facts only for purposes of hearing the demurrer. In other words, it seeks to determine if the pleading, the complaint in this case, is sufficient to state a cause of action. If not, the demurrer is sustained and the Plaintiff may be given leave to amend the complaint. Or, the case could be dismissed. If the demurrer is overruled, it means that the complaint does state a legally-sufficient claim that, if proven and absent affirmative defenses, will entitle the plaintiff to relief. But the case will still have to be proven through the completion of the litigation. A demurrer is simply a pleading, and by its existence it requests certain relief (i.e., dismissal). Motions to Dismiss generally do not exist in Virginia practice. They usually are called something else. This seems simply to be a standard way to challenge a pleading/complaint for insufficiency. of course, that is just general information, and obviously I have not read the The Commonwealth of Virginia's pleading, so "grain of salt" and all that.
Taxes-101  
#72 Posted : Tuesday, February 10, 2015 9:32:04 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
TheRealOrange...
Thanks for the legal explanation.
We might have the State's filing on Wednesday. And I'll post it to the web asap.
The demurrer "motion to dismiss" was anticipated.

Taxes-101  
#73 Posted : Thursday, March 19, 2015 6:46:18 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
MARCH 4 HEARING: A hearing on this case was heard in the Court on March 4, 2015. The hearing essentially addressed the State's "Motion to Dismiss" segment of its filed "Demurrer." There was also a lengthy written filing by the Plaintiff as an "Opposition to the Demurrer." The case was argued for about an hour. Plaintiff engaged a Court Reporter to record the verbal argument. The Judge has taken the case under consideration and indicated a written decision would be issued after a complete review of all filings and the hearing transcript. A decision will be rendered on or about March 25, 2015. Case is now a wait mode... waiting for the Judge's written decision.
Taxes-101  
#74 Posted : Friday, March 27, 2015 6:38:26 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
As of March 27, 2015 the Judge has not yet rendered a decision on the State's "Motion to Dismiss."
We are still in a wait mode! However... it is anticipated that the judge will not dismiss the case outright... that it will be allowed to be heard at trial. But that outcome is speculation.
Taxes-101  
#75 Posted : Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:41:24 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
We are still waiting for the Court's written decision on the March 4, 2015 Hearing.
The Decision is now expected by Friday April 3, 2015. But that could slip forward further!

Taxes-101  
#76 Posted : Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:43:35 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
NARFE (National Assoc of Retired Federal Employees) published info on this case in its March 2015 Newsletter.
You can read the about the issue in the link... see page 3.
http://www.vanarfe.org/S...slation%20Newsletter.pdf
Taxes-101  
#77 Posted : Thursday, April 2, 2015 6:14:35 AM(UTC)
Taxes-101

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/11/2014(UTC)
Posts: 76

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Judges Decision date changed to April 10, 2015 (see www.csrstax.com). We are still waiting for the Court's written decision on Virginia's attempt to dismiss the case. There were many filing related to the March 4, 2015 Hearing (total about 70 pages thus far). The Decision is now expected by Friday April 10, 2015. But that could slip forward further! It's in the hands of the Judge.

Non-Virginia Residents: For those reading this who are in other states... 22 states have tax policies similar to Virginia's. Thus if the Plaintiff prevails... it will force changes in 22 states.
TheRealOrange  
#78 Posted : Monday, April 6, 2015 2:57:48 AM(UTC)
TheRealOrange

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 899

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Taxes-101 Go to Quoted Post
Non-Virginia Residents: For those reading this who are in other states... 22 states have tax policies similar to Virginia's. Thus if the Plaintiff prevails... it will force changes in 22 states.

That's not true, or at least not based on a Federal district court decision. Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court bind all other federal courts, and decisions of the various circuit courts of appeals bind only the federal district courts located within each circuit. The decisions of district courts generally set no precedent and have no binding effect on other district courts. So, a Federal district court judge in any of those other 22 states is not bound to follow a decision made by a district court judge in Virginia. Not only that, but Virginia is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and even other district court judges in the Fourth Circuit are not bound to follow another district court's decision. Rather, they are bound only by published decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has appellate jurisdiction over Virginia’s federal courts (as well as those in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia). Also, any decision rendered in this case will be based solely on the specific language of the Virginia statute, while outcomes in the other states will depend on the specific language in those particular state statutes. Therefore, even if Federal district court decisions could bind judges in those 22 other states, any decision in this case would not address those other states' laws. Therefore, this decision would have no effect at all in those states. In fact, I believe that would be true even if this case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, unless the statutory language in the other 22 states is identical, not just similar, to the language of the Virginia statute at issue (highly unlikely). In what court is this case?
Dunleyg  
#79 Posted : Monday, April 6, 2015 7:32:12 AM(UTC)

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 111

Was thanked: 5 time(s) in 5 post(s)
I agree that Federal District court decisions are non-binding outside that district, but rather, precedents are Persuasive throughout the court system. If effect a 9th district court in some minor decision can be introduced in the Supreme Court. If the relevance of the minor courts decision impacts the SCOTUS judges then in effect the minor courts decision had a impact on a non-binding court. With this case so close physically close to the SC, it could impact the SCOTUS using Original Jurisdiction to harmonize laws among disparate state laws. In COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF MARYLAND, PETITIONER v. BRIAN WYNNE, ET UX. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE, the Supreme Court was asked just such a case and to make such a decision. Only time will tell if Taxes-101 will have a effect on the way states may tax people. Until then, its all academic as so many hurdles have to be jumped to ever get to that stage.

Edited by user Monday, April 6, 2015 7:33:39 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

TheRealOrange  
#80 Posted : Monday, April 6, 2015 10:04:59 AM(UTC)
TheRealOrange

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 899

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 167 time(s) in 146 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Dunleyg Go to Quoted Post
I agree that Federal District court decisions are non-binding outside that district, but rather, precedents are Persuasive throughout the court system. If effect a 9th district court in some minor decision can be introduced in the Supreme Court. If the relevance of the minor courts decision impacts the SCOTUS judges then in effect the minor courts decision had a impact on a non-binding court. With this case so close physically close to the SC, it could impact the SCOTUS using Original Jurisdiction to harmonize laws among disparate state laws. In COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY OF MARYLAND, PETITIONER v. BRIAN WYNNE, ET UX. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE, the Supreme Court was asked just such a case and to make such a decision. Only time will tell if Taxes-101 will have a effect on the way states may tax people. Until then, its all academic as so many hurdles have to be jumped to ever get to that stage.

The Wynne case was first heard in the Maryland state courts -- the Maryland Tax Court and then the Circuit Court for Howard County (which reversed the tax court decision) -- not a Federal district court or circuit court of appeals. The case then reached the Court of Appeals of Maryland, also not a Federal court, and the Circuit Court for Howard County decision was upheld. It is from the Court of Appeals of Maryland decision that the writ of certiorari was sought and granted. Note that the Court of Appeals of Maryland is the highest court in Maryland (commonly called the Supreme Court in other states). So, the lawsuit had already run its course through all of the usual appeals processes and had only one place left to go -- the U.S. Supreme Court. That is not an unusual process at all. In any event, there is no doubt that other courts can be asked to consider Federal district court decisions, just as state court decisions can be used in the same way. I was simply trying to say that a Federal district court decision in Virginia, on the constitutionality of a Virginia law, will hardly "force changes in 22 states," even if those states have similar laws. Each law will have to be viewed on its merits and unique language. But, a favorable decision could ultimately prompt changes in those states, especially if it were to go to the U.S. Supreme Court and be upheld. Even then it would not be a certainty, but it would be a possibility. Since I presume this case is already in the Federal court system, I believe it would have to go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit prior to going to the Supreme Court. And, the Supreme Court often does not get involved until there is a split in the circuits to resolve. I do not think they would care about the proximity of the matter (i.e., arising in Virginia). And, I don't think they would act merely to harmonize disparate state laws, at least not until those laws went through the usual trial and appeals processes. I just think there will be a long way to go even if the plaintiffs are successful at the trial court stage. So, you're right; there are many hurdles for the plaintiffs to jump to get to that stage.
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
7 Pages«<23456>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.478 seconds.