Employer-Provided Education Assistance on FICA taxes

[KzooKendrick]

Hey all,

I will be receiving $10,000 this year in tuition reimbursement from my employer. I know that according to IRS Publication 970, "If you receive educational assistance benefits from your employer under an educational assistance program, you can exclude up to $5,250 of those benefits each year. This means your employer should not include those benefits with your wages, tips, and other compensation shown on your Form W-2, box 1. This also means that you do not have to include the benefits on your income tax return."

Additionally, "If your employer pays more than $5,250 in educational assistance benefits for you during the year, you must generally pay tax on the amount over $5,250. Your employer should include in your wages (Form W-2, box 1) the amount that you must include in income."

Given these facts, my employer should include $4,750 in box 1 on my W-2. However, it doesn't specifically say how this will impact FICA taxes.

1. Don't I technically owe FICA taxes on the additional $4,750 that will be included on my W-2?
2. Looking back at my paychecks I see FICA taxes were only taken out on my base salary, not on any tuition reimbursement
3. When filing my 1040, there isn't a spot that addresses FICA taxes, only federal income tax

Any help would be appreciated!

[Cathy]

I cannot and will not comment on your specific situation, but I can post some general information about FICA taxes.

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA") was most recently enacted by Congress as chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat 415 (August 16, 1954). It has been amended many times in the years since then, but it is still codified in chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC §§ 3101-3128). FICA actually authorises two separate taxes: an excise tax on employers (26 USC §§ 3111-3113) and an income tax on employees (26 USC §§ 3101–3102). The two FICA taxes have different (although similar) rules.

The FICA tax on employees is an income tax whose magnitude is "equal to [a] percentage[] of the wages" of the employee. 26 USC § 3101(a). The term "wages" includes "all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash", unless specifically excluded. 26 USC § 3121(a). Educational assistance received as compensation for employment would appear to be within that language. However, one specific exclusion from "wages" is that "wages" does not include "any payment made, or benefit furnished, to or for the benefit of an employee if at the time of such payment or such furnishing it is reasonable to believe that the employee will be able to exclude such payment or benefit from income under section 127 ...". 26 USC § 3121(a)(18). Section 127 provides that up to $5,250 in educational assistance is excluded from income, subject to various conditions. 26 USC § 127(a). In summary, educational assistance received as remuneration would appear to be subject to FICA employee tax to the extent the assistance exceeds $5,250, unless the assistance can be excluded from wages for another reason listed in 26 USC § 3121.

If an employer underwithholds FICA employee tax, the IRS can choose to collect the difference from either the employer or the employee or some combination thereof. The IRS is not required to attempt to collect from the employer first. See, e.g., 26 CFR 31.3102-1(d) ("Until collected from him the employee ... is liable for the employee tax with respect to all the wages received by him"); Navarro v. United States, No EP-92-CA-375-B, 1993 US Dist LEXIS 10270 (D West TX, June 23, 1993) (allowing the IRS to withhold underpaid FICA employee tax from an income tax refund that the taxpayer would have otherwise received); FSA 200022004 at *11 (February 3, 2000); PLR 9525003, 1995 PLR LEXIS 554 at *2 (March 13, 1995); J. Aaron Ball, The Sea Clammers Doctrine: Reeling in Private Employment Tax Claims in Worker Misclassification Cases, 1 DePaul Bus & Comm L J 215, 238 n 183 (2003) (collecting cases).

[Vilgan]

I cannot and will not comment on your specific situation, but I can post some general information about FICA taxes.

The Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA") was most recently enacted by Congress as chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 68A Stat 415 (August 16, 1954). It has been amended many times in the years since then, but it is still codified in chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC §§ 3101-3128). FICA actually authorises two separate taxes: an excise tax on employers (26 USC §§ 3111-3113) and an income tax on employees (26 USC §§ 3101–3102). The two FICA taxes have different (although similar) rules.

The FICA tax on employees is an income tax whose magnitude is "equal to [a] percentage[] of the wages" of the employee. 26 USC § 3101(a). The term "wages" includes "all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash", unless specifically excluded. 26 USC § 3121(a). Educational assistance received as compensation for employment would appear to be within that language. However, one specific exclusion from "wages" is that "wages" does not include "any payment made, or benefit furnished, to or for the benefit of an employee if at the time of such payment or such furnishing it is reasonable to believe that the employee will be able to exclude such payment or benefit from income under section 127 ...". 26 USC § 3121(a)(18). Section 127 provides that up to $5,250 in educational assistance is excluded from income, subject to various conditions. 26 USC § 127(a). In summary, educational assistance received as remuneration would appear to be subject to FICA employee tax to the extent the assistance exceeds $5,250, unless the assistance can be excluded from wages for another reason listed in 26 USC § 3121.

If an employer underwithholds FICA employee tax, the IRS can choose to collect the difference from either the employer or the employee or some combination thereof. The IRS is not required to attempt to collect from the employer first. See, e.g., 26 CFR 31.3102-1(d) ("Until collected from him the employee ... is liable for the employee tax with respect to all the wages received by him"); Navarro v. United States, No EP-92-CA-375-B, 1993 US Dist LEXIS 10270 (D West TX, June 23, 1993) (allowing the IRS to withhold underpaid FICA employee tax from an income tax refund that the taxpayer would have otherwise received); FSA 200022004 at *11 (February 3, 2000); PLR 9525003, 1995 PLR LEXIS 554 at *2 (March 13, 1995); J. Aaron Ball, The Sea Clammers Doctrine: Reeling in Private Employment Tax Claims in Worker Misclassification Cases, 1 DePaul Bus & Comm L J 215, 238 n 183 (2003) (collecting cases).

Hi Cathy,

Would you please consider shorter answers in human readable language rather than lots of quotes? I have no clue if you are a lawyer, really want to appear like a lawyer, or what, but its a real turn off with your posts. They also have a strong tendency to be misleading since they are based off of copy pasting various statutes and codes without any context as to how the IRS or other agencies actually enforce or view them. I sometimes wonder if you even understand what you are copy/pasting.

I'm not sure what the deal is, but all lawyers I know are also very able to phrase things in ways a human can understand since explaining things to lay people is a critical skill. I think that attempting to understand the meaning and convey *that* rather than just copying over references would both benefit your ability to communicate and also be a lot more helpful for whoever reads your posts.

Thanks!

[Cathy]

[Your posts] have a strong tendency to be misleading since they are based off of copy pasting various statutes and codes without any context as to how the IRS or other agencies actually enforce or view them. I sometimes wonder if you even understand what you are copy/pasting. ...

I'm not sure how to begin responding to this strange reply.

First of all, my post above was an original piece of writing (written by me). It was not copied or plagiarised from elsewhere, contrary to your allegation. Second, I'm not sure how you could read the post above and conclude that I don't understand my own writing. In just a few paragraphs, my post above describes the history of the legislative regime, analyses the relevant law, discusses the possible consequences of noncompliance with that law, and provides numerous references for its claims. It's a pretty concise and yet accurate treatment of a complicated subject. The post above is not something anybody could write without understanding the subject, especially in the short period of time that I wrote it in (around 20 minutes).

Your assertion that my post above does not consider "how the IRS or other agencies actually enforce or view [the law]" is factually inaccurate. My post above actually cited an IRS National Office Field Service Advice memo and a Private Letter Ruling to illustrate, by way of example, how the law is applied in practice (even though such documents are not precedential authority). There is also nothing misleading in my post above and you have not identified anything misleading. On the contrary, my posts are always extremely carefully qualified precisely to avoid misleading anybody about anything. This has a tendency of making them more complicated, but it's a necessary evil.

You are, however, correct about one thing: my posts are not, and are not intended to be, legal advice on any particular situation. They are intended to be more in the nature of academic scholarship, as I've mentioned numerous times. If you retained counsel for legal advice, they would give advice tailored to your specific situation rather than the academic discussions I post here. My posts are not intended to be a replacement for that, but if that is what people want, they should be retaining counsel, not posting on this forum. I often state that explicitly (including in the first sentence of the post above), and it's also stated in my signature below.

From your reply, I imagine you've never read any technical legal scholarship before, but if you ever do, you'll find it's similar to the content I post on this forum. Legal scholarship is not the same thing as legal advice on a specific situation. That said, replies like yours really drive home why I will be starting my own website for this scholarship. For some reason, as your reply illustrates, people who haven't studied the law can demonstrate a very hostile reaction to legal writing, and it gets tiring that my well-crafted essays provoke some frustrating replies here. I just haven't got around to setting up the website yet as I have been busy with other things in my life.

[CPA CB]

[Your posts] have a strong tendency to be misleading since they are based off of copy pasting various statutes and codes without any context as to how the IRS or other agencies actually enforce or view them. I sometimes wonder if you even understand what you are copy/pasting. ...

I'm not sure how to begin responding to this strange reply.

First of all, my post above was an original piece of writing (written by me). It was not copied or plagiarised from elsewhere, contrary to your allegation. Second, I'm not sure how you could read the post above and conclude that I don't understand my own writing. In just a few paragraphs, my post above describes the history of the legislative regime, analyses the relevant law, discusses the possible consequences of noncompliance with that law, and provides numerous references for its claims. It's a pretty concise and yet accurate treatment of a complicated subject. The post above is not something anybody could write without understanding the subject, especially in the short period of time that I wrote it in (around 20 minutes).

Your assertion that my post above does not consider "how the IRS or other agencies actually enforce or view [the law]" is factually inaccurate. My post above actually cited an IRS National Office Field Service Advice memo and a Private Letter Ruling to illustrate, by way of example, how the law is applied in practice (even though such documents are not precedential authority). There is also nothing misleading in my post above and you have not identified anything misleading. On the contrary, my posts are always extremely carefully qualified precisely to avoid misleading anybody about anything. This has a tendency of making them more complicated, but it's a necessary evil.

You are, however, correct about one thing: my posts are not, and are not intended to be, legal advice on any particular situation. They are intended to be more in the nature of academic scholarship, as I've mentioned numerous times. If you retained counsel for legal advice, they would give advice tailored to your specific situation rather than the academic discussions I post here. My posts are not intended to be a replacement for that, but if that is what people want, they should be retaining counsel, not posting on this forum. I often state that explicitly (including in the first sentence of the post above), and it's also stated in my signature below.

From your reply, I imagine you've never read any technical legal scholarship before, but if you ever do, you'll find it's similar to the content I post on this forum. Legal scholarship is not the same thing as legal advice on a specific situation. That said, replies like yours really drive home why I will be starting my own website for this scholarship. For some reason, as your reply illustrates, people who haven't studied the law can demonstrate a very hostile reaction to legal writing, and it gets tiring that my well-crafted essays provoke some frustrating replies here. I just haven't got around to setting up the website yet as I have been busy with other things in my life.

Cathy -

Wait, I thought you were from LexisNexis?

I think you're taking a lot of this out of context and/or missing the boat with regards to Vilgan's comments. It's clearly becoming personal to you (fair enough - I've given you flak too, see above) but at some point you've got to listen to the music.

No one here doubts your proficiency, or even your goals, namely to help the person in question. That much I hope is clear.

That being said, Vilgan has a point. Being a professional is as much about understanding the intricacies and jurisprudence, as it is about being able to communicate effectively to the layperson who you intend to help. Whether they've hired you or not, this talent and duty of care still exists.

Vilgan never once accused you of plagiarism, but it's interesting that you drew that line yourself.

He merely stated you copy/paste from statutes and decisions (which you do, all the time), but don't provide context to the discussion. This, I believe, is an accurate representation. I find your posts to be heavy of statutes, and light on application - this may be intentional, only you would know, really.

That being said - you need to consider the context of your comments. If you seek to create an expertise in legal scholarship (as you proclaim) then do it - but this expertise is ill-used on a blog where people are asking for what is effectively common-law advice, while knowing fully that the rigours and benefits of due process with a professional in an engagement are waved. People can find what you're speaking of in Google - they're looking for application.

In addition, what you claim to be academic and legal scholarship is, so far as the posts I've seen, completely fictitious. Academic and Legal Scholarship would mean you are taking on a certain position of the law, and discussing relevant case facts from common law, and interpretation from judges in relevant decisions to support or refute a position which you hold.

Before you get going on legal scholarship - I've written in numerous legal journals in Canada, so we can avoid the personal attack which you extended to Vilgar when you state "From your reply, I imagine you've never read any technical legal scholarship before".


You, by definition, cannot do this while simultaneously exonerating your position through a disclaimer stating everything you say is general and inapplicable to specific circumstances. I have not once found a circumstance where you own an opinion - but I have found many posts where you cite (copy/paste) case law and statutes. This is not legal scholarship, by any definition. 

In short - if you want to be a productive member of the community, then remember that your comments need to be productive to the members of the community. 99% of members don't know legal issues, the remaining 1% are probably split between tax, personal injury, corporate commercial, and real estate law, so your posts are entirely counter-productive to 99.75% of the MMM community at large. Bring some application of the law to the table, and you'll see a significant increase in people saying "Thanks Cathy!" as opposed to "??? Cathy".

This is all I'll put into this - I hope you start to tailor your comments to the questions asked appropriately, as I think you have something valuable to add to the MMM community.

Best,

CPA CB





 

[Cpa Cat]

Given these facts, my employer should include $4,750 in box 1 on my W-2. However, it doesn't specifically say how this will impact FICA taxes.

1. Don't I technically owe FICA taxes on the additional $4,750 that will be included on my W-2?
2. Looking back at my paychecks I see FICA taxes were only taken out on my base salary, not on any tuition reimbursement
3. When filing my 1040, there isn't a spot that addresses FICA taxes, only federal income tax

Any help would be appreciated!

1. Not necessarily. If the expense is a work-related fringe benefit, then the employer can continue to exclude it. Generally, this applies if the education would qualify to be deductible to you as a business expense.

2. If you believe a mistake has been made, you should speak to your HR department or payroll clerk and see if you can get some clarification on the numbers. However, it may not be an error.

3. You are correct that there is no way for you a repay under-collected FICA. That is really your employer's responsibility. There's a hotline you can call to report them to the IRS, if you want. I can't imagine that this will be on the top of their priority list of violations to investigate, however. ;)

Whatever you do, when inputting your W-2 into tax software, you should not change any of the numbers that appear on the official W-2, even if you believe that they are wrong. Report your W-2 exactly as you receive it from the employer. If you believe your W-2 is wrong, you should ask for a corrected W-2 from your employer.

[brooklynguy]

In short - if you want to be a productive member of the community, then remember that your comments need to be productive to the members of the community. 99% of members don't know legal issues, the remaining 1% are probably split between tax, personal injury, corporate commercial, and real estate law, so your posts are entirely counter-productive to 99.75% of the MMM community at large. Bring some application of the law to the table, and you'll see a significant increase in people saying "Thanks Cathy!" as opposed to "??? Cathy".

This is all I'll put into this - I hope you start to tailor your comments to the questions asked appropriately, as I think you have something valuable to add to the MMM community.

In other words, in your eyes, Cathy must provide specific legal advice, and restrict herself to providing specific legal advice, in order for her to be a "productive member of the community"?

Cathy's post was, as she said (and contrary to your incorrect assessment), an example of actual legal analysis in the nature of academic scholarship.  As she said, her post was a concise (and useful, in my opinion) original treatment of a complicated subject, which could not have been obtained through a Google search because it did not exist before she created it (which, I believe, was Cathy's point about it not being copied from elsewhere--quoting from primary source material when analyzing primary source material is necessary and appropriate, and does not render the writing a copy and paste job, as you and Vilgan both suggested).

Like most of this forum's most valuable contributors, Cathy tends to use the specific questions asked as springboards for broader (but still relevant) commentary whose utility extends beyond directly responding to the narrow questions originally posed.

[Cathy]

1. Not necessarily. If the expense is a work-related fringe benefit, then the employer can continue to exclude it....

This is correct. As noted in my first post in this thread, "educational assistance received as remuneration would appear to be subject to FICA employee tax to the extent the assistance exceeds $5,250, unless the assistance can be excluded from wages for another reason listed in 26 USC § 3121" (emphasis added). I did not analyse every other reason listed in that statute because there are 21 of them and any number of them could theoretically apply in certain narrow circumstances given the right set of facts. Certain fringe benefits are indeed one of those other theories that could potentially apply (§ 3121(a)(20), which in turn refers to § 132). Another possible theory would include certain "qualified tuition reductions" (§ 3121(a)(20), which in turn refers to § 117(d)) (we don't know whether the OP's employer is an eligible organisation for such things, so it's potentially on the table). I agree it probably would have been helpful to survey some of the other possible bases for exclusion in more detail.

3. You are correct that there is no way for you a repay under-collected FICA. That is really your employer's responsibility.

(Emphasis added.)

In my first post in this thread, I cited five authorities that demonstrate the opposite conclusion:

If an employer underwithholds FICA employee tax, the IRS can choose to collect the difference from either the employer or the employee or some combination thereof. The IRS is not required to attempt to collect from the employer first. See, e.g., 26 CFR 31.3102-1(d) ("Until collected from him the employee ... is liable for the employee tax with respect to all the wages received by him"); Navarro v. United States, No EP-92-CA-375-B, 1993 US Dist LEXIS 10270 (D West TX, June 23, 1993) (allowing the IRS to withhold underpaid FICA employee tax from an income tax refund that the taxpayer would have otherwise received); FSA 200022004 at *11 (February 3, 2000); PLR 9525003, 1995 PLR LEXIS 554 at *2 (March 13, 1995); J. Aaron Ball, The Sea Clammers Doctrine: Reeling in Private Employment Tax Claims in Worker Misclassification Cases, 1 DePaul Bus & Comm L J 215, 238 n 183 (2003) (collecting cases).

It's potentially possible that the cited regulation is invalid, that the district court decision cited is wrong, that the two IRS documents cited reach unsubstantiated conclusions, and that the journal article cited contains errors of law. None of those authorities is from the US Supreme Court and they could all be wrong. I would be interested if you have an argument that they are all wrong.

[CPA CB]

In short - if you want to be a productive member of the community, then remember that your comments need to be productive to the members of the community. 99% of members don't know legal issues, the remaining 1% are probably split between tax, personal injury, corporate commercial, and real estate law, so your posts are entirely counter-productive to 99.75% of the MMM community at large. Bring some application of the law to the table, and you'll see a significant increase in people saying "Thanks Cathy!" as opposed to "??? Cathy".

This is all I'll put into this - I hope you start to tailor your comments to the questions asked appropriately, as I think you have something valuable to add to the MMM community.

In other words, in your eyes, Cathy must provide specific legal advice, and restrict herself to providing specific legal advice, in order for her to be a "productive member of the community"?

Cathy's post was, as she said (and contrary to your incorrect assessment), an example of actual legal analysis in the nature of academic scholarship.  As she said, her post was a concise (and useful, in my opinion) original treatment of a complicated subject, which could not have been obtained through a Google search because it did not exist before she created it (which, I believe, was Cathy's point about it not being copied from elsewhere--quoting from primary source material when analyzing primary source material is necessary and appropriate, and does not render the writing a copy and paste job, as you and Vilgan both suggested).

Like most of this forum's most valuable contributors, Cathy tends to use the specific questions asked as springboards for broader (but still relevant) commentary whose utility extends beyond directly responding to the narrow questions originally posed.

No, when you say 'in other words', what you imply is certainly not my words.

In addition - I state that Cathy cites case law and statutes. This is copy paste by definition (I hope she doesn't 'amend' what has been stated in each case). I also state it isn't plagiarism. Which by definition it means it is original. Which again, is pointed out accordingly.

I think you have every reason to support Cathy's contribution, and it's a valuable one. Unfortunately, it often misses the question entirely because this 'springboard' which you discuss is totally unsubstantiated, not asked for, and not discussed appropriately.

I suggest you re-read my post. Cathy has a lot to add - I hope she realizes it, and makes some adjustments to make this addition more effective. As I say, in order to be a productive member, you need to be productive to the members. This isn't to restrict her commentary in any sense. My only commentary is that you need to meet the audience - playing Sinatra at a Frat Party, or Dead Mouse at a Retirement Party - you're not going to connect, and be effective in the way you want. Cathy seems very frustrated - I'm merely commenting from my own experience with my topic in the tax section.

In terms of academic scholarship - this implies an interpretation of law (in this circumstance) where pros and cons are hashed out in an informative discussion using case law and statutes to support a position. I don't see this at all.

Cathy is a valuable contributor who could do a much better job if she made her messages and contributions more attributable to the question at hand.

I think it is interesting you're spending time critiquing my assessment, when I think mine is probably the more supportive and constructive on the boards. I'm trying to be helpful - one wonders what your goal is given the obfuscation.

Appreciate the feedback - but don't put words in my mouth.

Cheers,

CPA CB

[brooklynguy]

I think it is interesting you're spending time critiquing my assessment, when I think mine is probably the more supportive and constructive on the boards. I'm trying to be helpful - one wonders what your goal is given the obfuscation.

I'm not sure what "obfuscation" you're referring to, but my goal was primarily to let Cathy know that not all of us share your critical opinion of her posts.

[Cathy]

... a disclaimer stating everything you say is general and inapplicable to specific circumstances ...

When I write that my posts contain general information and do not purport to contain legal advice on any specific situation, that is merely a description of the contents of the posts. It would be true whether or not I posted a statement to that effect. It appears you agree with that description based on the balance of your messages here.

My primary motivation for writing about abstract issues rather than purporting to apply the law to the situation of any specific poster is that I don't think that I can do a consistently competent or ethical job of that in the context of this forum. Among other reasons, people usually do not post all of the relevant facts for their issue. (The original poster ("OP") certainly did not do so in this thread.) That is actually completely understandable: one of the functions of a lawyer is to interview the client and obtain the relevant facts. However, in the context of this forum, attempting to extract the facts through a series of follow-up posts would be tedious and error-prone at best, because, among other reasons, this is a public forum, and people would always be a bit reluctant to disclose certain specifics even if asked. They would probably leave out things they don't want to share without even saying that they are doing so. There is also a reasonable chance that other people would join into the thread and that the intervening replies would complicate things. I genuinely do not want somebody to rely on general information that does not take into account all of the facts of their specific situation.

In addition, even if I believed it was possible to provide competent and ethical legal advice on a person's specific situation in the context of this forum (which I do not believe it is possible to do for the most part), it would still be a bad idea because the discussion would be completely public and available for use against the poster in any subsequent audit or litigation.

I am sorry that you do not like my posts. One of my goals is to show people, in an abstract way, that law is basically a textual system, and that arguments can be rooted in primary sources. Most people who haven't studied the law often do not realise this, and they think, for example, that government publications are the source of law. The value I am providing here is pedagogical in nature. It's not intended to be a substitute for retaining counsel, or a CPA, or whatever professionals are appropriate for a person's specific case.

[CPA CB]

I think it is interesting you're spending time critiquing my assessment, when I think mine is probably the more supportive and constructive on the boards. I'm trying to be helpful - one wonders what your goal is given the obfuscation.

I'm not sure what "obfuscation" you're referring to, but my goal was primarily to let Cathy know that not all of us share your critical opinion of her posts.

The obfuscation is where you're putting words in my mouth that are completely contrary to their intention.

I quoted Cathy's entire post and commented accordingly - yes, I critique, but it's constructive, and I hope helpful. Nothing is out of context, nothing re-worded. I hit quote - and then say hey, here are some suggestions.

You, alternatively, take what I say, and quote only a portion thereof to obfuscate my words and intentions. This has happened twice in a row now.

Read my original post.

Read my post to you - I think I am very clear in this regard. You're the one putting words in my mouth, and when I disagree with your interpretation, you're ignorant? You're making the assertions here - you're the one with an onus of proof.

Again, I suggest you re-read my suggestions to Cathy. If you disagree, great - it's a free North America (sort of) anyways - but don't take what I'm saying, and twist it to meet your objective. It's counter-productive.

Once again - Cathy - if you want to be effective, adjust your style to meet the objectives of the community here. If you don't want to be effective here, then start the website and kick ass - I'm on your side. Steve Jobs couldn't compete in a Microsoft world, so he created his own - if you can't be effective (i.e. the people don't appreciate your work) one way - then go out and create a following which is eager to read and obtain your advice. You've got the means to do it.

Also - Cathy - I'm reading your current post right now. It's not that I don't like your posts. I think they're valuable but need discussion and context. I'm just trying to bridge a gap here to help you. People can be a-holes, I'm trying to be helpful.

CPA CB

[seattlecyclone]

In short - if you want to be a productive member of the community, then remember that your comments need to be productive to the members of the community. 99% of members don't know legal issues, the remaining 1% are probably split between tax, personal injury, corporate commercial, and real estate law, so your posts are entirely counter-productive to 99.75% of the MMM community at large. Bring some application of the law to the table, and you'll see a significant increase in people saying "Thanks Cathy!" as opposed to "??? Cathy".

This is all I'll put into this - I hope you start to tailor your comments to the questions asked appropriately, as I think you have something valuable to add to the MMM community.

In other words, in your eyes, Cathy must provide specific legal advice, and restrict herself to providing specific legal advice, in order for her to be a "productive member of the community"?

Yes. If someone asks a question, the polite thing to do is provide an answer, not spew a bunch of statutory references and case law snippets that are sort of related to the topic at hand. These things can form a part of a well-researched answer, but they often provide negative value on their own.

[CPA CB]

My primary motivation for writing about abstract issues rather than purporting to apply the law to the situation of any specific poster is that I don't think that I can do a consistently competent or ethical job of that in the context of this forum.

So why bother posting if you're incompetent (by your own words?)

Brooklynguy - this post is for you as an example of obfuscation. See how context applies? Do you see why taking a snippet of a post is unfair to the intended message?

CPA CB

[brooklynguy]

You, alternatively, take what I say, and quote only a portion thereof to obfuscate my words and intentions. This has happened twice in a row now.

No, I quote only a portion of your posts (as I did once again in this post, and which is a common practice among many members of the forum) simply to highlight the specific portion to which I am most directly responding and to avoid needlessly duplicating the post in its entirety, which remains available for everyone's reference just by scrolling up.

Yes. If someone asks a question, the polite thing to do is provide an answer, not spew a bunch of statutory references and case law snippets that are sort of related to the topic at hand. These things can form a part of a well-researched answer, but they often provide negative value on their own.

Well, Cathy explicitly prefaced her response by saying she is not going to comment on the OP's specific situation, and I found her abstract response to have positive value (both in general and in service of helping the OP to determine the answers to his questions).

More importantly, while I'm not sure if Cathy has ever revealed whether or not she is actually a licensed attorney, either way she should not be providing specific legal advice without obtaining all of the relevant facts (which, as she said above, is impossible to do in this format).

[seattlecyclone]

Yes. If someone asks a question, the polite thing to do is provide an answer, not spew a bunch of statutory references and case law snippets that are sort of related to the topic at hand. These things can form a part of a well-researched answer, but they often provide negative value on their own.

Well, Cathy explicitly prefaced her response by saying she is not going to comment on the OP's specific situation...

Can you see how this can be frustrating to people who come here to ask questions? Ask a couple of yes/no questions and the first response is "I'm not going to answer your question, but here are a bunch of sections of the US code and a few federal court opinions you might want to look at to figure it out for yourself, and you should probably retain counsel to provide a professional opinion about whether or not you might owe a few hundred dollars worth of taxes." That response is not what was requested, not in the slightest. If Cathy's professional ethical obligations prevent her from providing an actual answer in a public forum, I think she should move these derailing posts to a different location, as she has said she plans to do. Then you and anyone else who finds them interesting can look at them without distracting from the people who have questions that they want to have answered.

[Cathy]

In the United States, general discussion of the law is generally not subject to regulation because it is constitutionally protected (although there are certain exceptions, and the foregoing general statement certainly should not be relied on without researching the case law of any individual state). See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So 2d 1186 (FL Supreme Court 1978) ("There are numerous texts in our state law libraries which describe our substantive and procedural law, purport to give legal advice to the reader as to choices that should be made in various situations, and which also contain sample legal forms which a reader may use as an example. We generally do not restrict the access of the public to these law libraries, although many of the legal texts are not authored by attorneys licensed to practice in this state. These texts do not carry with them any guarantees of accuracy, and only some of them purport to update statements which have been modified by subsequently enacted statutes and recent case law.").

As the quote above suggests, no one doubts that free speech includes the right to publish general texts and writing on the law without state regulatory interference. However, purporting to give specific legal advice on a person's individual situation runs into a number of regulatory issues.

[CPA CB]

You, alternatively, take what I say, and quote only a portion thereof to obfuscate my words and intentions. This has happened twice in a row now.

No, I quote only a portion of your posts (as I did once again in this post, and which is a common practice among many members of the forum) simply to highlight the specific portion to which I am most directly responding and to avoid needlessly duplicating the post in its entirety, which remains available for everyone's reference just by scrolling up.

Yes. If someone asks a question, the polite thing to do is provide an answer, not spew a bunch of statutory references and case law snippets that are sort of related to the topic at hand. These things can form a part of a well-researched answer, but they often provide negative value on their own.

Well, Cathy explicitly prefaced her response by saying she is not going to comment on the OP's specific situation, and I found her abstract response to have positive value (both in general and in service of helping the OP to determine the answers to his questions).

More importantly, while I'm not sure if Cathy has ever revealed whether or not she is actually a licensed attorney, either way she should not be providing specific legal advice without obtaining all of the relevant facts (which, as she said above, is impossible to do in this format).

Three times in a row! Who wants to put a toonie on a fourth?

Taking statements and picking them out is certainly normal practice - but as you've demonstrated, you are not just picking them, you're cherry picking them again, and again, and now, again.

For everyone's reference, here's where we are...

Me: "The obfuscation is where you're putting words in my mouth that are completely contrary to their intention."

Response: TBD

Me: Read my post to you - I think I am very clear in this regard. You're the one putting words in my mouth, and when I disagree with your interpretation, you're ignorant? You're making the assertions here - you're the one with an onus of proof.
Response: TBD

Me: Again, I suggest you re-read my suggestions to Cathy. If you disagree, great - it's a free North America (sort of) anyways - but don't take what I'm saying, and twist it to meet your objective. It's counter-productive.

Response: TBD

Me: I think you have every reason to support Cathy's contribution, and it's a valuable one. Unfortunately, it often misses the question entirely because this 'springboard' which you discuss is totally unsubstantiated, not asked for, and not discussed appropriately.

I suggest you re-read my post. Cathy has a lot to add - I hope she realizes it, and makes some adjustments to make this addition more effective. As I say, in order to be a productive member, you need to be productive to the members. This isn't to restrict her commentary in any sense. My only commentary is that you need to meet the audience - playing Sinatra at a Frat Party, or Dead Mouse at a Retirement Party - you're not going to connect, and be effective in the way you want. Cathy seems very frustrated - I'm merely commenting from my own experience with my topic in the tax section.

In terms of academic scholarship - this implies an interpretation of law (in this circumstance) where pros and cons are hashed out in an informative discussion using case law and statutes to support a position. I don't see this at all.

Cathy is a valuable contributor who could do a much better job if she made her messages and contributions more attributable to the question at hand.

Response: TBD

Oops, lest we forget:

Me: "You, alternatively, take what I say, and quote only a portion thereof to obfuscate my words and intentions. This has happened twice in a row now."

Response: "No, I quote only a portion of your posts (as I did once again in this post, and which is a common practice among many members of the forum) simply to highlight the specific portion to which I am most directly responding and to avoid needlessly duplicating the post in its entirety, which remains available for everyone's reference just by scrolling up."

Yes you're right - I think it makes perfect sense to ignore the entire purpose of the message and context.

What's it like being a politician these days?

[Vilgan]

Hi Cathy,

Writing is a medium for communication and thus the main goal would be to communicate. Supplying a bunch of quotes and statues and codes is not going to communicate a coherent message to most readers on a forum and is very unlikely to be what someone wanted. Its still fine to supply that, but it should be, in my opinion, separate from whatever message you are trying to communicate. For example, see CPA CB's response to the OP where he lists the points and then answers them. Something along those lines is great and then you could supply the legal references and justifications for why you think that below. Or if you disagree with someone else you can state that clearly and then provide justification (including these sorts of references) for justification. It seems like you came to opposite conclusions about #3 but it was very hard to discern that from your original response as any observation to that effect was mixed in with the various references.

There's a reason that in books and journals the footnotes simply have a number so that people can look up the reference point if they care while focusing on the meat of the answer. If I ask "What is the weather tomorrow?" I primarily want to know a best guess for what the weather is going to be not a long litany of various methods to determine the weather along with a disclaimer that you are not their weatherman and they should retain a professional weatherman if they actually want to know about the weather. Similarly, answering questions more directly and then supplying the references after the fact for those who are interested would probably be met with a lot more appreciation and understanding.

Direct answers are not something to be avoided because they might be construed as legal advice. They should be embraced as that's what communication is about and it is a necessary skill in the legal profession as well as basically every job on earth except for politics. If you are concerned about the ethical implications or whatever, then supply the usual I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice disclaimer.

[CPA CB]

In the United States, general discussion of the law is generally not subject to regulation because it is constitutionally protected (although there are certain exceptions, and the foregoing general statement certainly should not be relied on without researching the case law of any individual state). See, e.g., Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So 2d 1186 (FL Supreme Court 1978) ("There are numerous texts in our state law libraries which describe our substantive and procedural law, purport to give legal advice to the reader as to choices that should be made in various situations, and which also contain sample legal forms which a reader may use as an example. We generally do not restrict the access of the public to these law libraries, although many of the legal texts are not authored by attorneys licensed to practice in this state. These texts do not carry with them any guarantees of accuracy, and only some of them purport to update statements which have been modified by subsequently enacted statutes and recent case law.").

As the quote above suggests, no one doubts that free speech includes the right to publish general texts and writing on the law without state regulatory interference. However, purporting to give specific legal advice on a person's individual situation runs into a number of regulatory issues.

Cathy

There is absolutely NO statement here regarding specific legal advice or regulation thereof.

The only statement here says that general discussions are not subject to regulation, and therefore you can't go and sue your good friend Bob for giving you random legal advice (whether qualified or unqualified) if he is not engaged specifically.

You have NO reason not to give accurate and specific advice based on your knowledge of  facts without any legal precursor or liability thereof, based on your own statement.

I agree with Vilgan - saying hey, I can't provide an opinion here. Oh, but here are some random quotes and subsections for you to look at. Oh, but in case you're wondering these do not represent a legal opinion - is probably more harm than good.

Additionally, not stating that you're a lawyer means that you likely aren't one. So for those checking in, chances are Cathy has a passion for law but is not a practicing attorney. Hopefully you haven't gone unadvised, because as she says, general legal advice is considered constitutionally protected.
 

[brooklynguy]

Yes you're right - I think it makes perfect sense to ignore the entire purpose of the message and context.

I disagree that that's what I've done, but I certainly don't feel duty-bound to deliver a point-by-point response to each and every point made in every post to which I choose to respond.

Ask a couple of yes/no questions and the first response is "I'm not going to answer your question, but here are a bunch of sections of the US code and a few federal court opinions you might want to look at to figure it out for yourself, and you should probably retain counsel to provide a professional opinion about whether or not you might owe a few hundred dollars worth of taxes."

I don't think that's a fair description of Cathy's response.  I don't understand how anyone who actually read what she wrote can claim that she merely spewed out snippets from statutes and other legal authority.  What she actually did was provide a cogent analysis of those statutes and authority, which was directly relevant to the questions asked by the OP.

[Cpa Cat]

3. You are correct that there is no way for you a repay under-collected FICA. That is really your employer's responsibility.

(Emphasis added.)

In my first post in this thread, I cited five authorities that demonstrate the opposite conclusion:
....
 I would be interested if you have an argument that they are all wrong.

FICA underpayments are revealed only when the IRS performs a payroll audit on an employer. No such audit would ever occur directly against an employee.

When an underpayment is discovered, the IRS will then try to collect from the employer, as the primary offender. It is the employer's responsibility to collect the correct amount of payroll and remit it to the government, and therefore the employer is subject to collections.

If the employer cannot be collected against, the IRS has options. In the case of non-profits, for example, the IRS might choose to pursue board members. In the case of a closely held corporation, the IRS would be likely to choose the owner/shareholder (who is often also an employee). It is theoretically possible for the IRS to pursue non-owner employees for the uncollected FICA tax, but they are so far down on the list that it is not a practical or realistic conclusion.

In the OP's case, none of that is relevant, because his employer is not bankrupt.

Again, he has no way to remit unpaid FICA. There is simply no process by which the taxpayer-employee can "fix" a FICA tax collection error.

My apologies for interfering with whatever was going on here in this thread or stepping on toes. It seemed to me that the OP's question of "Is this wrong and what should I do?" was not being answered in any practical sense, and I attempted to answer it.

When I was pursuing my Master's degree, I had a tax professor who made us purchase the Internal Revenue Code in book format and when we asked him a question, he would make us look through it (the IRC is many thousands of pages long), while the class waited, for the appropriate code section and then read it aloud. He would then pronounce, "There is your answer. Explain it to the class." We soon learned not ask questions. I didn't find that type of "answer" to be particularly helpful then and I don't choose to utilize that method of answering questions now that I'm a CPA.

[seattlecyclone]

Ask a couple of yes/no questions and the first response is "I'm not going to answer your question, but here are a bunch of sections of the US code and a few federal court opinions you might want to look at to figure it out for yourself, and you should probably retain counsel to provide a professional opinion about whether or not you might owe a few hundred dollars worth of taxes."

I don't think that's a fair description of Cathy's response. I don't understand how anyone who actually read what she wrote can claim that she merely spewed out snippets from statutes and other legal authority.  What she actually did was provide a cogent analysis of those statutes and authority, which was directly relevant to the questions asked by the OP.

Perhaps it doesn't describe this particular response exactly, but it does describe in broad strokes the content of her typical response. She's very quick to advise a person retain counsel for minor matters. She's a stickler for laying out what (she believes) The Law says, while encouraging distrust of IRS publications because they aren't The Law and thus aren't admissible as a defense in court. What she neglects to acknowledge is that this simply doesn't matter to most of us. If we get hauled in front of a tax court to defend our reading of the statutes, we have already lost. The amount of time, money, and risk involved in defending a statutory interpretation that contradicts the IRS's position is simply not worth the amounts of money that many of us would stand to save even if we prevailed in court. These legal arguments thus have little to no practical value to most of us.

As to your statement that Cathy's post is a cogent analysis, I must strongly disagree. Google defines "cogent" as "clear, logical, and convincing." It sure is logical, but clear it is not, and it really needs to be clear to be convincing.

In this particular post Cathy points out that an employee can be required to cough up some money when an employer has failed to withhold enough payroll tax on their behalf. This is interesting in a strictly academic sense, I admit. However it is absolutely useless to a person who just wants to know what (if anything) the IRS actually expects a person to do if they believe their employer may not have withheld enough payroll tax. Does the IRS have a form for an employee to fill out in this situation? I can't find one. Will they go after the employer first if they suspect underwithholding? Seems likely, but I have no experience to verify this guess.

[Cathy]

... encouraging distrust of IRS publications because they aren't The Law ...

I've already responded to you on this point elsewhere, but I think you may be misunderstanding the reason that I generally adopt a sceptical attitude toward secondary sources, including IRS publications. It's not because I necessarily think they are inaccurate (although they certainly can be), but rather because part of the reason I write these posts is to explain some basic civics concepts about how the government works. I believe explaining those concepts is a valuable social function, even though it doesn't answer anybody's specific question.

I summarised these concepts nicely in a post I wrote on November 6, 2015:

In the United States, "the power to enact statutes may only be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure". Clinton v. City of New York, 524 US 417, 439-40 (1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This procedure involves a bill passing both houses of Congress. US Constitution, Art I, § 7, cl 2. Notably, the IRS does not have a freestanding power to enact laws. Instead, "[i]t is axiomatic that an administrative agency's power to promulgate legislative regulations is limited to the authority delegated by Congress". Bowen v. Georgetown Univ Hospital, 488 US 204, 208 (1988). In exercise of its legislative power, Congress has delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the power to, among other things, "prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of" the Internal Revenue Code. 26 USC § 7805(a). However, this provision does not grant the Secretary or the IRS the power to amend statutes. "A regulation which ... operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a mere nullity." Manhattan General Equipment v. Commissioner, 297 US 129, 134 (1936) (internal comma omitted).

You've already explained that your response is that people want answers to their specific questions, not a general lesson in civics with no direct application to any particular situation. That is clearly true for some people and they are dissatisfied with my posts, but other people may appreciate the general information I've posted on this forum. As mentioned, I plan to set up a website for this writing when I have a chance.

[brooklynguy]

She's a stickler for laying out what (she believes) The Law says, while encouraging distrust of IRS publications because they aren't The Law and thus aren't admissible as a defense in court. What she neglects to acknowledge is that this simply doesn't matter to most of us.

It should matter to any of us who care to comply with our actual legal obligations (which should be all of us).

[seattlecyclone]

She's a stickler for laying out what (she believes) The Law says, while encouraging distrust of IRS publications because they aren't The Law and thus aren't admissible as a defense in court. What she neglects to acknowledge is that this simply doesn't matter to most of us.

It should matter to any of us who care to comply with our actual legal obligations (which should be all of us).

There are too many laws for any of us to personally understand the full extent of what our actual legal obligations even are. I have little doubt that any of us could be convicted of three felonies a day if faced with a sufficiently motivated prosecutor. I do my best to follow the law as I understand it, but I also don't spend much time sweating the small stuff. The IRS employs many people just as smart as me who spend their time deciding on how they will administer the laws Congress writes. Sometimes they get it wrong and people like Cathy go ahead and sue over it to make sure they get it right in the future. I have no interest in being that guy. Instead I follow the instructions they lay out to the best of my ability and hope that none of the information I report seems far enough out of the ordinary to trigger an audit.

[brooklynguy]

There are too many laws for any of us to personally understand the full extent of what our actual legal obligations even are. I have little doubt that any of us could be convicted of three felonies a day if faced with a sufficiently motivated prosecutor. I do my best to follow the law as I understand it, but I also don't spend much time sweating the small stuff. The IRS employs many people just as smart as me who spend their time deciding on how they will administer the laws Congress writes. Sometimes they get it wrong and people like Cathy go ahead and sue over it to make sure they get it right in the future. I have no interest in being that guy. Instead I follow the instructions they lay out to the best of my ability and hope that none of the information I report seems far enough out of the ordinary to trigger an audit.

I generally feel the same way, but that is not a good reason to criticize those who do point out errors, and the potential for errors, in IRS publications.

First of all, as illustrated by the example cited in the response Cathy gave the first time you objected to her explicit non-reliance on IRS publications, IRS publications may not even accurately describe the manner in which the IRS is actually administering the tax laws.

Second, in cases where the IRS is administering the tax laws in an arguably incorrect way, even though, like you, I don't personally want to serve as the test case for challenging that administration, I still want to know about the potential issue (and not stick my fingers in my ears and criticize the person who identifies it).

[Cathy]

... I follow the instructions they lay out to the best of my ability ...

Even the IRS does not intend for its publications to be relied on as a definitive source of instructions. According to the IRS, its publications contain only general information of unknown accuracy that should not be cited or relied upon:

IRS Publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position.

IRM 4.10.7.2.8(1).

As the IRS's own words above indicate, the IRS does not even promise to abide by the information in its publications. This is not merely a theoretical possibility. There are plenty of reported cases where the IRS actually took a position inconsistent with its publications. See, e.g., Gerstenbluth v. IRS, 728 F 3d 139, 147 (2nd Cir 2013) ("Gerstenbluth asserts that the IRS's position in this action is inconsistent with one of its taxpayer-oriented publications. ... This informal advice hardly amounts to a concession as to the appropriate treatment for FICA purposes. IRS publications do not displace controlling statutes, regulations, and case law. ... To the extent the IRS publication is inconsistent with our conclusion..., the publication misstates the law.").

That said, most of my posts do not purport to identify errors in IRS publications or even to analyse IRS publications. Rather, for the most part I simply post information that is not contained within IRS publications. If an IRS publication actually contains information that I want to post, I won't hesitate to refer to the publication, with appropriate qualifications.

[Cpa Cat]

There are plenty of reported cases where the IRS actually took a position inconsistent with its publications.

There are many more cases where the IRS attempts to introduce its publications as evidence in Tax Court and gets shot down by the judge.

Comments like the one above are not particularly useful, because they imply that it's common for the IRS to take positions inconsistent with its publications.

That is not common at all.

The average taxpayer can and should rely on IRS publications because the likelihood that the publication is in error OR that the publication will not be followed by the IRS is quite small. Taxpayers are far more likely to make errors in interpretation if they attempt to read and interpret the Internal Revenue Code directly.

Likewise, taxpayers frequently have difficulty understanding when a Tax Court case applies to their situation. Court cases are heavily dependent on individual facts and circumstances. Thus, Tax Court case quotes are rarely useful unless the full text of the case is read to provide context. Doubtless, Cathy read the tax case that she quoted, but the quote itself then implies something that was NOT stated in the case.

For example, in Gerstenbluth, the quote contains the words of the judge - not the IRS. It is the judge noting that if the IRS' publication is inconsistent with the Court's conclusion, then the publication misstates the law. BUT the judge does not actually discuss whether the IRS publication was incorrect (he doesn't need to), or whether Gerstenbluth was correct that the IRS publication was wrong. In fact, when reading the court case, it seems that the publication did not actually support Gerstenbluth's position in any clear way. It wasn't the IRS publication that was incorrect, it was Gerstenbluth's conclusion in reading it that was incorrect.

Also note that Gerstenbluth doesn't apply to the current situation. In this case, the employer collected FICA, as was its responsibility, and Gerstenbluth was attempting to argue that it was erroneously collected and he wanted a refund.

And because some people seem to enjoy quotes from court cases:

FICA places an obligation on the employer to collect the related taxes and transmit them to the government. 26 U.S.C. § 3102(a).

[Cathy]

Also note that Gerstenbluth doesn't apply to the current situation....

To the extent you may be suggesting that my citation to Gerstenbluth, supra, was inapposite, I don't really agree. It was only cited for the proposition that if the IRS takes a position inconsistent with a publication, then the law prevails, not the publication (i.e., the part that I quoted). It was not intended to support any proposition about FICA tax or any issue in this thread.

To the extent that my choice of where to place the citation in the post might imply that it is common for the IRS to take positions inconsistent with its publications, I can see how that might have been misleading. That wasn't the intent. As I've said in many past posts, and in this thread, the reason I discuss the legal authority of IRS publications (i.e., that they have none) is that I believe it is pedagogically important in terms of understanding how the US government works. It is not, and is not intended to be, specific or actionable advice (which the posters in this thread appear to recognise as they criticise me for not posting specific or actionable advice).

As for the FICA tax issue, the authorities I cited in the first post discuss how the employer is initially responsible for collecting the employee tax, but that if it does not do so, employees are still liable for the tax. The statement in Gerstenbluth is not inconsistent with that.

[seattlecyclone]

... I follow the instructions they lay out to the best of my ability ...

Even the IRS does not intend for its publications to be relied on as a definitive source of instructions.

They basically do, though.

According to the IRS, its publications contain only general information of unknown accuracy that should not be cited or relied upon:

IRS Publications explain the law in plain language for taxpayers and their advisors. They typically highlight changes in the law, provide examples illustrating Service positions, and include worksheets. Publications are nonbinding on the Service and do not necessarily cover all positions for a given issue. While a good source of general information, publications should not be cited to sustain a position.

This is a standard legal disclaimer to remind people that the IRS, despite its best efforts, sometimes makes mistakes. When this happens, of course the statute will rule the day in court. That doesn't mean that a typical taxpayer would be better served by reading and interpreting the Internal Revenue Code for themselves instead of simply reading and trusting the IRS publications.

Pointing out precedent allowing the IRS to go after an employee directly for underwithheld FICA tax is akin to enumerating the three felonies I probably committed before breakfast. Sure, it's technically possible for this to happen. That doesn't mean that this is a remotely likely outcome, or that there's anything that an employee is reasonably expected to do to ensure this tax is paid. As Cpa Cat pointed out, FICA places this requirement squarely on the employer's shoulders.

I still maintain that those of us who are more concerned with avoiding court appearances than with having a winning argument when we get there will be best served by following the IRS publications instead of mining case law for rare cases where that was the wrong thing to do. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this point. This is my last post on this topic.

[brooklynguy]

This is a standard legal disclaimer to remind people that the IRS, despite its best efforts, sometimes makes mistakes.

So are the disclaimers in Cathy's posts that you've objected to.

[MDM]

Wow, not what I expected when I opened this thread.  I'd ignored it at first because the topic seemed narrow, but after seeing the number of posts....

To the "Cathy issue" - I happen to enjoy her posts.  Others may not.  Oh well.  Different people like different flavors of ice cream too.

And back to the OP's question:
 - Box 3 of your W-2 will contain your employer's opinion of your "Social Security wages" - which may differ from the number in Box 1.  It is highly likely that the IRS will accept that number, and that the "Social Security tax withheld" amount in Box 4 will be 6.2% of the amount in Box 3.  If not, check with your employer for the reason(s).

However, statements about an individual having "no way to remit unpaid FICA" and "no process by which the taxpayer-employee can 'fix' a FICA tax collection error" are not completely correct.  The "Other taxes" section of Form 1040 (specifically, lines 58 and 62 in 2014) handles certain situations.  E.g., form 8959 is for under-collected Medicare.  Line 62 also handles "Uncollected social security and Medicare or RRTA tax on tips or group-term life insurance.  This tax should be shown in box 12 of Form W-2 with codes A and B or M and N."