What hypocrisy? By racking up such a ginormous tax bill, she's simply proving the depth of her anti-taxation beliefs.

Trying again:
S-C-H-A-D-E-N-F-R-E-U-D-E! You and me!
Schadenfreude!Making the world a better place...Making the world a better place...Making the world a better place...

You ever notice with these people that when one of their businesses fail it is never their fault. For example, from the above story, "Martin said that Lee's temp firm, which once employed 5000 people, had failed over two years ago, because of problems with a partner."

How convenient, the partner is out of the picture. Hubby "heroically" pays off workers, whom he undoubtedly cheated, then can't pay IRS.

Baloney.

Didn't the Martins ever hear of an accountant?

I can see owing the IRS $5,000. Or maybe $50,000 if you are really delinquent. But it takes a special type of idiot and/or criminal to run up a $500,000 bill, then have the gall to start an anti-tax group. Hope the Tea Baggers are proud of their leader.

I think she and her husband did the right thing. They refused the government aide and took responsibility. If anything she and her husband have higher standards than most of us, (me included). As far as the two interviews are concerned I think for the most part you answer questions that are asked. If you are ever interviewed by TV or Radio you will find they have an agenda and want to get their points across. Unlike this fine site that actually asked the tough questions and received answers to each of the questions.

Now how about asking Republican and Democrat members of Congress about their financial dealings. My bet it would be far more interesting.

Good job on the reporting by the way. Unlike some it was "fair and balanced". I am impressed.

You've really hit the bottom of the barrel if you are working as a temp for their firm. "Sorry, we can't pay you, we're bankrupt. Someone dropped something heavy on you and broke your foot at work? Too bad, go to the Emergency Room and wait in line."

But she's been Taxed Enough Already, doncha know.

One more detail. They owed Ford Corporation $ 71,000 as well. No wonder the automakers are broke... And does anyone think that they bought cars they could not afford at that price? What happened to 'taking responsibility' fiscally BEFORE you go down the drain? As someone else said, if they owed over $ 500,000 that sounds like they were not paying for a few years before this happened, and were not taking responsibility beforehand.

Temp firms don't generally have a lot of full-time workers. The overwhelming majority of those "5,000 employees" were temps who are only paid when they are on a temp assignment. So the Martins had to pay them or they'd get whacked by their customers. If those customers were paying then the temp salaries should be covered and then some.

"Had he paid the IRS [it would have] prevented those employees from getting paid."

It is my experience as CPA that such a large tax liability is almost always due to payroll tax liabilities rather than income taxes owed. This means that income taxes and social security taxes withheld from employees' earnings were not remitted to the government.

If an employee earns $10 an hour and works 40 hours, then he is paid $400 less income taxes and social security and medicare taxes withheld. His net check is significantly less tahn the $400 in gross wages.

An employer acts as a fiduciary in collecting (withholding) and then remitting such taxes. If such taxes are not remitted, then employers either accumulate such cash or use those monies for some other purpose. In either case, the employer has employee funds and is using those funds rather than remitting them as required by law.

For Ms. Martin to proclaim some sort of solidarity with her husband's employees belies the fact that funds withheld from those employees' checks was still in the control of her husband.

This is why the IRS has little tolerance in such circumstances. Letting the employer continue to operate in such a manner creates larger liabilities and is in essence theft from the employee and the government.

If such liabilities were merely income tax liabilities, the IRS is more tolerant and often allows installment arrangements for payment.

In any case, the hypocrisy of Ms. Martin is stunning.

I agree with what toughguy says above and would defer to his knowledge on the matter of taxes and liabilities to the IRS.

Another point worth mentioning is the issue of the house being lost, and their appearing to act responsibly by refusing government help in purchasing another. Bull-hockey. I'll bet you anyting that there is no way these folks would have qualified for ANY mortgage funding with that sizable IRS tax lien. Ain't gonna happen.

Amazing..all while telling every one to "suck it up" and "pull themselves up by their boot straps" "no one gets a free ride"...blah, blah...and I don't want to pay my taxes....! So I suggest that if her house is on fire, or her family is being held hostage at gunpoint, or if some foriegn country invades this country..those (tax paid) government run public services that she abhors..fire department, police department, military...pass her and her family by, and save only the ones who have paid their taxes..(let her figure out how to put her own house-fire out, resolve her own family hostage situtation and fend for herself when the "foriegn invaders" line her up and shoot her (or "interrogate" her children in front of her)...no taxes?...then you don't qualify for any of the public government program services..either..! (And get your damn cars of my (public) road...I paid my taxes!)

My heart goes out to anyone that has lost their home, their business and their livelyhood. It is tragic, freightening and demoralizing to find yourself in that position. That said, her story raises a lot of questions based on her limited disclosure. She makes it sound like they made a string of totally unselfish martoresque decisions as everything unfolded without any thought of self-preservation. That raises doubts.

"Lee's temporary-employee firm had 5,000 workers before it went down in the recession."

because of problems with a partner.

OMG!!! And some of the people organizing the rally's supporting healthcare reform owe medical bills or can't afford insurance!!! This madness of people who have a vested interest in the issues making their voices heard must be stopped!!!

Unpaid payroll taxes are the responsibility of each principal of the company, jointly and separately. Incorporation of the company offers no protection from such personal responsibility because the withholding and remittance of payroll taxes is a fiduciary responsibility. You just can't walk away from it.

To pass off responsibility to a partner is a cop out. To not know that payroll taxes weren't being paid, especially given the magnitude of the size of the liability, is, at best, willful negligence.

Ms. Martin's tone of acceptance of "personal responsibility" is an implicit acknowledgement of such negligence. In her case, she's wearing that acceptance as some badge of honor rather than an admission of of malfeasance.

Her political actions suggest a large measure of hypocrisy. As suggested above, she and her husband have already been the recipients of a rather large loan from the federal government.

And you and I are on the hook to the extent that those liabilities remain unpaid.

I'm not buying her backstory either. I worked for a temp agency (not as a temp but as an employee of the firm itself) and it's all about workers picking up their paycheck at the end of every single day. If a firm your agency does business with stops reimbursing you for providing day labor you will find out about it real soon and stop doing business with them (so that's not how you would be likely to go bankrupt).

Consequently, I agree with all the posters who are saying this has to be about shorting the IRS for the taxes the temp agency was supposed to be paying on behalf of the temporary workers. I'd really like to know more about the history of Ms. Martin's husband's business. Particularly in regard to whether they ought to have been subject to criminal sanctions for the way their business was mismanaged.

You notice that at no time would she actually give us the name of this altruistic business. Anyway, with just a few bits of information it should be easy to verify or disprove whatever she says from a computer, more than likely from public records.
I really would like to see what Mrs. Panstreppon could do with this lady's story.