It's been a little over 3 weeks since Google randomly sent me $249,999(twitter.com)
twitter.com
It's been a little over 3 weeks since Google randomly sent me $249,999
https://twitter.com/samwcyo/status/1569897392560050178
216 comments
And do not under any circumstance forget to administer a captcha of traffic lights.
Possibly within a 2-3x loop, just to be more faithful to the original.
also, ask them for 7 one hour sessions of leetcode and a behavioral interview and then send them a nice email saying you are passing on them and wish them the best of luck on their journey.
or even better: tell them that they did great, but unfortunately requirements have shifted.
Demand the government ID be an original copy of the company's drivers license.
I once did an internship with a BigTechCompany, and after my internship was over and I went back to university, they kept paying me! Every two weeks, I got another paycheck direct deposited. As a starving student, I have to admit it was not easy to just ignore it sitting there in my bank account but I knew if I spent it I'd eventually be in a world of hurt. I tried to contact BigTechCompany, but evidently their HR department was as incompetent as their payroll department--they didn't understand what I was talking about and kept saying since I don't work for them they would not discuss internal payroll issues with them. So month after month, my bank account grew and grew, and I'm sitting in class eating ramen noodles.
Finally, after about 8 months of this, I got an extremely threatening letter from BigTechCompany's lawyers informing me that due to a payroll error, I was overpaid, and they demand I immediately return the money that was not mine or face legal consequences, blah, blah, blah. Of course I sent it back, but what a wild and crazy way for a company to treat people when it's entirely the company's fault.
Finally, after about 8 months of this, I got an extremely threatening letter from BigTechCompany's lawyers informing me that due to a payroll error, I was overpaid, and they demand I immediately return the money that was not mine or face legal consequences, blah, blah, blah. Of course I sent it back, but what a wild and crazy way for a company to treat people when it's entirely the company's fault.
You should have ignored the letter and called a lawyer. Depending on your location, you may have been allowed to keep the money. I had something similar happen before (a much smaller amount, 3 weeks extra pay) and I was able to keep the money. They did send a threatening letter, but I paid a lawyer a few bucks to tell them to go pound sand.
Exactly what I was thinking. Company fucked up. Not my job to babysit their money for 8 months, and DEFINITELY not my job to call them and beg them to take it back. Corporations have brainwashed a lot of people I think, to forget that you have agency over your own life.
Oh trust me, I did call an attorney for a free consultation. Apparently in my State my chances of keeping the money were slim and he advised me to just return it and move on with life. I figured if even a lawyer doesn't see any money for himself here, then I don't see any either.
Another way might have been look at it like a free loan. Invest the money (in something relatively safe), and then pay it back having earned yourself some interest / return for your trouble of looking after their money.
lol God no
smart move! very good to seek legal consultant in such situations
Just so no one reads this and thinks it's a good idea to tell the company to simply fuck off if the same thing happens to them:
There is such a thing as acting in good faith. When you notice an obvious mistake in your favor (even if it's made by The Evil Faceless Corporation of Malevolency), trying to tell someone about it is not only going to protect your ass if it winds up in court, it's just The Right Thing To Do.
(Of course, if they ignore you or send you in circles, then you have a stronger case that they don't want it back all _that_ bad.)
There is such a thing as acting in good faith. When you notice an obvious mistake in your favor (even if it's made by The Evil Faceless Corporation of Malevolency), trying to tell someone about it is not only going to protect your ass if it winds up in court, it's just The Right Thing To Do.
(Of course, if they ignore you or send you in circles, then you have a stronger case that they don't want it back all _that_ bad.)
I think think OP did do the right thing. He tried to contact them and was blown off
> The Right Thing To Do
Hopefully you're joking on this part. No large company will ever act or care about the above quote, so its foolish for an individual to do so.
Hopefully you're joking on this part. No large company will ever act or care about the above quote, so its foolish for an individual to do so.
Who cares? The right thing to do doesn't rely on what others may hypothetically do. Acting in good faith consistently in life can pay off multiple times over if you build up a reputation for it. And from a non-selfish angle, it's the moral choice to make.
Now the poster has the opportunity to work for that company again, which would have probably been burned if they fought to keep the money accidentally paid to them.
Now the poster has the opportunity to work for that company again, which would have probably been burned if they fought to keep the money accidentally paid to them.
But the Judge will.
The theme here is that a (small) win is not worth a life-ruining liability.
The theme here is that a (small) win is not worth a life-ruining liability.
This also happened to me. 25 years ago I was fired without severance (shady consultancy), but I kept getting paid for three months. I used that money because I didn't have savings, and needed to support my family while I got a new job.
At the fourth month they called me and threatened me to get their money back, but in my country all deposits are final, so they didn't have a legal recourse. I offered to return it in six installments, and they threw a tantrum and ghosted me.
I still think you did the right thing. I wouldn't have touched that money if I had an option, because even if it was legal, and the lifesaver I needed to hop jobs, it was immoral. I'm sure someone was scolded because of that, I hope they didn't make them pay that sum in my place.
At the fourth month they called me and threatened me to get their money back, but in my country all deposits are final, so they didn't have a legal recourse. I offered to return it in six installments, and they threw a tantrum and ghosted me.
I still think you did the right thing. I wouldn't have touched that money if I had an option, because even if it was legal, and the lifesaver I needed to hop jobs, it was immoral. I'm sure someone was scolded because of that, I hope they didn't make them pay that sum in my place.
The fact that their lawyers were threatening you was your signal that you likely had a legal case for keeping it. Lawyers get bossy when they get scared
This happened to me and at least one other intern in the late 90’s at Cisco. The other intern told them after 1 week and was told to just keep it. I waited five weeks (a little more than $4K) and then told them. They never got back to me but stopped sending me checks. I left it in my bank account from August until the following May (paid my taxes). When I graduated, I used that money on a nice trip to Europe.
From one of the replies:
> Be careful.
> There is a scam where people put money into your account.
> You send the money back to them, only to they've applied for a loan in your name that you still have to pay back, but you've given away the money.
> Make sure it is you who initiates contact. Verify!
That’s a terrifying scam!
> Be careful.
> There is a scam where people put money into your account.
> You send the money back to them, only to they've applied for a loan in your name that you still have to pay back, but you've given away the money.
> Make sure it is you who initiates contact. Verify!
That’s a terrifying scam!
I haven't seen this with a loan on the other end but I've definitely heard of it with a payment: they send you a large amount, then contact you to tell you it was a mistake, but it was their fault (or sometimes _your_ fault) and they just need you to send the excess back to them.
Of course after you send that real transaction "returning" the extra amount, you find that the check from them didn't clear (or that the transfer didn't happen for whatever other reason; a modern variant uses remote desktop to trick the victim into thinking a large amount of money is in their account when it's not).
Though with a three week delay that's probably not what's happening here.
Of course after you send that real transaction "returning" the extra amount, you find that the check from them didn't clear (or that the transfer didn't happen for whatever other reason; a modern variant uses remote desktop to trick the victim into thinking a large amount of money is in their account when it's not).
Though with a three week delay that's probably not what's happening here.
Kitboga is one of the best "shaming vigilantes" attempting to embarrass these kinds of scammers into reevaluating their life choices and choosing a more honorable life path
https://youtu.be/6ccdd2HSY30
https://youtu.be/6ccdd2HSY30
The type of scammers Kitboga deals with aren't really the same as what's discussed above, but it's close. The scammers Kitboga deals with typically operate by gaining access to your PC, having you log into your bank account, and using your browser's html debugger to edit the screen to make it appear as if they actually sent you too much money. Whereas the offline, traditional, version of this scam actually involves sending you a bad check and you depositing it and hoping you send them money before the bank figures out it was a bad check and removes the money from your account.
> Though with a three week delay that's probably not what's happening here.
If a deposit is fraud, the banks are accountable to reverse it when discovered (inside applicable statutes of limitations for financial fraud), and you as account holder agreed to that when you signed up. Only rarely do banks on the ends have to eat the amount instead of one of the account holders.
No money given to you incorrectly through a bank is yours (unless your lawyers are better with more staying power than theirs, because in practice, contracts are basically irrelevant when litigated with sufficient will and skill).
If a deposit is fraud, the banks are accountable to reverse it when discovered (inside applicable statutes of limitations for financial fraud), and you as account holder agreed to that when you signed up. Only rarely do banks on the ends have to eat the amount instead of one of the account holders.
No money given to you incorrectly through a bank is yours (unless your lawyers are better with more staying power than theirs, because in practice, contracts are basically irrelevant when litigated with sufficient will and skill).
Would not work on me, corporate sends me money as surprise … it’s stays :D
I would blame the loaner for giving malicious loan that can't be legal. If someone here is not careful with money, it's the bank.
The whole "bank said my identity has been stolen, they took all my money" fiasco makes it pretty clear banks can blame whatever on whomever, and the judicial system won't do squat.
Yeah, it's very asymmetrical with banks. Say you wire a large amount of money to the wrong account number? Too bad, you don't get it back. A large amount of money is mistakenly wired to your account? You're in for a world of hurt.
YUP
That's why with any payee over a few $hundred, I first send a tiny test ACH transfer and get them to tell me that it worked and how much. It'll take hundreds of those extra efforts to outweigh just sending one big payment astray.
Also, since there are now so many scams with advance payment, if by surprise some large check or pmt lands in my acct, I'm definitely NOT sending it back with any speed, IDK what kind of pitiful story they tell. I'll transfer it to a new interest-bearing acct (possibly by cash w/security guard), then hold it pending full identification of source, actual error, and the outcome of any investigation.
I'll hold onto it both because it may be an error that would be right to return, and because I don't want to get caught out having to return something I already spent, but the presumption that I'll just send it straight back is no longer valid.
That's why with any payee over a few $hundred, I first send a tiny test ACH transfer and get them to tell me that it worked and how much. It'll take hundreds of those extra efforts to outweigh just sending one big payment astray.
Also, since there are now so many scams with advance payment, if by surprise some large check or pmt lands in my acct, I'm definitely NOT sending it back with any speed, IDK what kind of pitiful story they tell. I'll transfer it to a new interest-bearing acct (possibly by cash w/security guard), then hold it pending full identification of source, actual error, and the outcome of any investigation.
I'll hold onto it both because it may be an error that would be right to return, and because I don't want to get caught out having to return something I already spent, but the presumption that I'll just send it straight back is no longer valid.
I had a friend who wired hundreds of thousands to the wrong account and it was returned after what I recall a lot of stress and wondering if it would come back and him on the phone a lot. Worked out in the end. I don't know if they'd put as much effort into someone only wiring small sums.
Depends where you live and why you were wiring the money.
Banks in the UK are on the hook if it's a scam induced transfer.
Banks in the UK are on the hook if it's a scam induced transfer.
This isn’t true in my experience in the US. House purchase wired to slightly wrong account number. Stressful that money hadn’t shown up at closing, but it was resolved within a day.
Yup. My parents wired me some funds from Australia to the US for a gift for part of a house downpayment. Something got screwed up with the numbers and the intermediary bank concept. But was able to call someone in the bank's operations department who was able to correct the issue and forward the wire on (I want to say it was sent to the intermediary bank's bank number, but the recipient bank account number, so intermediary said 'this is for us, but this isn't a valid account' - thankfully even though I wasn't the sender I was able to update them, because the comments on the wire had the correct "intended destination" so there was no ambiguity).
It seems a bummer that bank accounts don't include "checksums" as part of the standard numbering system like CC numbers. If you get a digit wrong it'd fail to even initiate.
Thank goodness you have to enter more than just an account number, like a name! Ive done this once and it was all returned because all of the info didn't match.
Seriously how does that work? Any lawyers in here?
When you make a transfer there's a bit in the fine print where the bank doesn't take responsibility for a mistake on your part.
So google made a mistake and the money now belongs to this guy.
No, it’s just not the bank’s fault. Probably (jurisdictions may differ) the recipient is required to return funds unintentionally sent to them.
How can both be true?
Compare this to any other situation where it is a random person that makes a similar mistake:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32645934
I had the problem that bank didn't update my communication postal address to my new address so they send all kind of important paperwork (like new access details for banking etc) to the old address and then blamed me. When these paperwork was used to sell my stock portfolio
They will, eventually, if you can afford to outspend the bank on lawyers. It's yet another case of financial might making right.
I'm confused how you would be liable for a loan that you did not initiate. Identity theft in general is just bank robbery, with the notable difference that then the bank turns around and robs you.
In some countries, like at least Norway, you sign these loans with what is called BankID - it is essentially used for all kinds of e-signing, it's probably the most used 2FA tool here. Probably other Scandinavian countries too.
But back to my point - if you for whatever reason get compromised to such a degree that other people can sign off things with your BankID, you're basically completely fucked. At least for probably 99.99% of the cases.
This is because the law recognizes that sign-off as if you did it. And if some other did it, you've breached the ToS - which more or less states that you, and you only, can know the password, and it is your responsibility that said password is hidden / unavailable to others. Your signature and confirmation, your loan.
The most common victims of these cases are spouses and close family members.
But again, these things do differ from country to country.
But back to my point - if you for whatever reason get compromised to such a degree that other people can sign off things with your BankID, you're basically completely fucked. At least for probably 99.99% of the cases.
This is because the law recognizes that sign-off as if you did it. And if some other did it, you've breached the ToS - which more or less states that you, and you only, can know the password, and it is your responsibility that said password is hidden / unavailable to others. Your signature and confirmation, your loan.
The most common victims of these cases are spouses and close family members.
But again, these things do differ from country to country.
I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.
Consumers in Scandinavia are not responsible when scammed unless they've acted with grave misjudgment or ill intent.
There was even a case in the high court to cement this right in Sweden this summer specifically for BankID.
https://www.konsumentverket.se/aktuellt/ko-har-ordet/2022/ko...
Consumers in Scandinavia are not responsible when scammed unless they've acted with grave misjudgment or ill intent.
There was even a case in the high court to cement this right in Sweden this summer specifically for BankID.
https://www.konsumentverket.se/aktuellt/ko-har-ordet/2022/ko...
The supreme court of Norway just denied an appeal from a bank on a similar case in Norway. The person had been phished over a telephone call, and gave away passwords and 2fa token to what they believed was a bank employee.
https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/...
https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/...
In Turkey, 2FA tokens for banks generated by app or sent by SMS all contain a message about never giving the token or your password to a bank employee...
so?
so if Norwegian banks did the same as Turkish banks, the customer is now fully liable for doing the exact opposite of what they've been explicitly told never to do by the warning clause accompanying each 2FA message
Not how the law works here - you're always liable in either case, but it is hoped that the message might prevent some cases of fraud.
It's difficult to secure people against social engineering...
yeah, America is about twenty years behind you guys in banking tech. But that is for a reason.
If the money from the loan is actually paid out to you, then it’s not too surprising that you need to give it back.
If sears sends me a refrigerator that I didn't buy, I get to keep it. I can treat it as an unconditional gift. I have no obligation to either return, relinquish, or pay for it. I did not enter a business relationship with sears. I signed no contract, and the object was delivered to me. The law says that it is unconditionally mine. This is a fairly important consumer protection. I agree with this law and think that it should extend to falsified loans for essentially the same reason. In the absence of such a law, the lender has placed upon me an enormous amount of liability.
Consider the case where I have a small checking account in which I deposit my child's allowance, the child discovers that this account has $10,000 in it for some reason, and, like a child, goes on a spending spree. Is my child responsible for exercising some measure of restraint with this money? They are, in the eyes of the bank, authorized to access this money for their own use, but suddenly you think that I am obligated to return thousands of dollars that my child spent on minecraft skins or something because the lender wants to lower the friction for loan applications?
The lender should be generally SOL.
Consider the case where I have a small checking account in which I deposit my child's allowance, the child discovers that this account has $10,000 in it for some reason, and, like a child, goes on a spending spree. Is my child responsible for exercising some measure of restraint with this money? They are, in the eyes of the bank, authorized to access this money for their own use, but suddenly you think that I am obligated to return thousands of dollars that my child spent on minecraft skins or something because the lender wants to lower the friction for loan applications?
The lender should be generally SOL.
Knowledge of the transaction is an essential element of a valid loan application.
Right, but if you transfer that money away before the bank gets it back then you would be liable for that part.
I understand what the law probably says, I'm arguing that it's nonsense. The scammer stole money from the bank in this scenario because the bank fulfilled a fraudulent loan application without due diligence of ID confirmation. The fact that this could be Bob's problem demonstrates how dystopian our legal system is.
Why the extra steps of sending money if the little shit who faked the identity already had the money?
Presumably it goes like this:
1. Apply for loan under Bob Smith's name using stolen/forged identity
2. Company providing loan will only send to a bank account in Bob Smith's name
3. Provide the company with Bob Smith's real bank account details
4. Message Bob Smith, "oops, we accidentally sent you $x in error! please send it back"
5. Bob Smith now on the hook for proving they didn't apply for a loan
1. Apply for loan under Bob Smith's name using stolen/forged identity
2. Company providing loan will only send to a bank account in Bob Smith's name
3. Provide the company with Bob Smith's real bank account details
4. Message Bob Smith, "oops, we accidentally sent you $x in error! please send it back"
5. Bob Smith now on the hook for proving they didn't apply for a loan
At step 4, my default has always been "Please work with your financial institution to reverse the transaction." and then don't touch the money they've sent. Not touching the money and saying you are completely willing to return it but want to ensure it follows the correct process through the financial institution will protect you legally should it be an actual accident, and if it is a scam it'll disappear on its own when the scam runs out of time (bank determines you were sent money through a forged check and reverses it or something similar). Ignore any sob stories about how they need the money, the more convincing the sob story the more likely it is a scam to begin with.
So bank fell for a con and now Bob has to pay?
Bank fell for a con issuing a fraudulent loan
Bob fell for a con by transferring money to someone
So even if the loan is forgiven to bob (which it should be), the bank could argue that those funds that were transferred were bob's own money, not the loan
Bob fell for a con by transferring money to someone
So even if the loan is forgiven to bob (which it should be), the bank could argue that those funds that were transferred were bob's own money, not the loan
Negative. Bob did not initiate a loan, and did not have the money to give.
Bob's mistake was sending the money "back" to someone other than the original sender. I'm sure you can appreciate how this appears no different to the sending bank vs. e.g. sending it to your cousin who conveniently lives in another country.
I don't see why that should be Bob's problem. Don't give out loans without proof of identity.
It's not about the loan at that point. It could be a wrong account number, or a wrong amount (e.g. https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/01/australia-crypto-com-accident... ) and Bob would still be liable if Bob moved the money out and was unable to return it.
The house always wins.
Yes because how would it look different if Bob was playing both the victim and the scammer?
Would be easier to find Bob's stolen identity information on the darkweb and open a new account under those credentials. If not Bob, then someone else. Fairly easy to get a set of stolen US identity documents these days.
If you had the private info to apply for a loan in someone’s name, you also have the information to create a bank account in someone name.
You don’t need to prove that you didn’t create the loan. It’s up to the company to prove that it was you. Having private information isn’t enough. At most you need to file a police report to expunge it off your credit report.
$250k is also the amount that involves the Feds. Most scammers won’t hit that amount since they know the state/loc police don’t have the capability/resources to investigate electronic funds transfer type scams.
You don’t need to prove that you didn’t create the loan. It’s up to the company to prove that it was you. Having private information isn’t enough. At most you need to file a police report to expunge it off your credit report.
$250k is also the amount that involves the Feds. Most scammers won’t hit that amount since they know the state/loc police don’t have the capability/resources to investigate electronic funds transfer type scams.
> If you had the private info to apply for a loan in someone’s name, you also have the information to create a bank account in someone name.
Creating a bank account (fully, not just the application to do so) generally requires going into a bank branch. At least in Australia and UK anyway.
Going into a bank branch would mean real potential risk for a scammer, as they'd then be caught on camera. And if the bank figures out they're a scammer before hand... potential police waiting.
My point being that the post you're replying to makes a good point. A scammer could do a bunch of things that aren't all that risky, compared to creating an account in person... which seems like it would introduce a _lot_ more risk.
Creating a bank account (fully, not just the application to do so) generally requires going into a bank branch. At least in Australia and UK anyway.
Going into a bank branch would mean real potential risk for a scammer, as they'd then be caught on camera. And if the bank figures out they're a scammer before hand... potential police waiting.
My point being that the post you're replying to makes a good point. A scammer could do a bunch of things that aren't all that risky, compared to creating an account in person... which seems like it would introduce a _lot_ more risk.
Assuming this is the US. There are lots of online only banks. Also I think Paypal offers banking services. Most discount brokers offer banking services like Etrade, Ameritrade and they allow people to signup online.
> requires going into a bank branch. At least in Australia
Not true, wheres the bank branch for ING? https://www.ing.com.au/
Not true, wheres the bank branch for ING? https://www.ing.com.au/
Good point, I'd forgotten about them.
I did say generally requires going into the bank in person though. ;)
I did say generally requires going into the bank in person though. ;)
You don’t need to go in to make an account on fidelity. There are other online only banks as well.
That account will let you start investing right away. Try to pass 250k through it and I think you'll find fraud and KYC flags are in effect until you've done something that verifies your access to your address, etc, go change your address to a forwarder and that will affect your credit report, and so on..
Regular banking is pretty indifferent to the future profits of a new account that can pay out cash as it examines risk, while a loan salesman's interest in believing he has a sale..
Regular banking is pretty indifferent to the future profits of a new account that can pay out cash as it examines risk, while a loan salesman's interest in believing he has a sale..
KYC requirements are wrapped up in the AML rules. It's the same. Any one handling money needs to know their customer. Banks will run "credit" checks on new accounts usually through Chex Systems. It checks if you had a bank account closed due to negative balance.
Also pushing $250k to a bank/sweep account won't set anything off because the risk to FI handling the money is minimal. There's minimal risk it can be clawed back and the risk is on the FI that pushed the money. If you pull the money, thats a different story due to rules around ACH clawbacks. I assume fidelity lets you fund your account with no max though a push either ACH or Wire but to pull, you're limited to $50k or a lower amount per day. If you try to transfer that money out from a pull, it will get locked down till the ACH clawback period expires.
Also pushing $250k to a bank/sweep account won't set anything off because the risk to FI handling the money is minimal. There's minimal risk it can be clawed back and the risk is on the FI that pushed the money. If you pull the money, thats a different story due to rules around ACH clawbacks. I assume fidelity lets you fund your account with no max though a push either ACH or Wire but to pull, you're limited to $50k or a lower amount per day. If you try to transfer that money out from a pull, it will get locked down till the ACH clawback period expires.
[deleted]
5. Bob sends it back to the bank.
And your scenario doesn't match the original:
> There is a scam where people put money into your account.
And your scenario doesn't match the original:
> There is a scam where people put money into your account.
"where people put money into your account" here can mean "where people cause money to show up in your account by applying for a loan in your name".
The constrained message length and lack of edit feature on Twitter means you have to forgive people if their wording isn't exactly as accurate as you might want it to be.
The constrained message length and lack of edit feature on Twitter means you have to forgive people if their wording isn't exactly as accurate as you might want it to be.
Bob doesn't have any of the original details of the originating bank and loan, he's sufficiently likely to trust the person who seems to know what's going on and who messaged him out of the blue, saying "Please, please, I beg you, transfer the money that just showed up in your account [from Loaning Bank] back to me, at Different Bank by means of Western Union." Bob, being a kind and honest person, is unlikely to guess at the existence of the loan.
If the person does look up the details and just transfers the money back to the loaning bank, that doesn't cost the scammer anything.
If the person does look up the details and just transfers the money back to the loaning bank, that doesn't cost the scammer anything.
If Bob has his antannae up he does. If not he sends it to the IBAN that the scammed gave him for the 'return' payment.
They didn't. I guess it's easier to apply for a loan for someone else if the money goes to their account (otherwise you'll have to fake a bank account, too. and with KYC rules and such it is probably not so easy). But I don't know how they could fake the sender, so this is probably something else?
There's a variation where somebody owns money, sends it to you, convinces you to send it back, and then reverses the original transfer.
Maybe GP's description mixed two similar frauds, maybe both variations exist
Maybe GP's description mixed two similar frauds, maybe both variations exist
> they've applied for a loan in your name that you still have to pay back
If I defraud somebody on behalf of Wells Fargo you'd better believe they won't cough up any cash for the cause. You are not responsible for third parties interacting with each other without your knowledge or permission, and the fact that your name was dropped somewhere doesn't make that any less true.
If I defraud somebody on behalf of Wells Fargo you'd better believe they won't cough up any cash for the cause. You are not responsible for third parties interacting with each other without your knowledge or permission, and the fact that your name was dropped somewhere doesn't make that any less true.
Unless Google has started offering loans this specific scam seems unlikely in this case.
[deleted]
Or just don't it back. It's google. They aren't gonna go bankrupt or starve to death.
But, there's a very real chance that you will if you spend it. In most cases, the courts will agree that it's theft.
The author participates in bug bounties and Google have a $250k reward for certain vulnerability types so perhaps it’s more “sent me $250k without notifying me about my bounty submission” than “randomly”
https://bughunters.google.com/about/rules/6171833274204160/a...
Alternatively, they have his bank details from participation in bug bounties and he was mistakenly sent someone’s Ad revenue.
https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/2731686?hl=en
https://bughunters.google.com/about/rules/6171833274204160/a...
Alternatively, they have his bank details from participation in bug bounties and he was mistakenly sent someone’s Ad revenue.
https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/2731686?hl=en
Seems to be a transfer from some ad-related business on Google's side:
> Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) directly deposits your Ad Exchange revenue into your bank account [...] the deposit will be labeled as one of the following [...] Google LLC EDI PYMNTS
https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/2731686?hl=en
> Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) directly deposits your Ad Exchange revenue into your bank account [...] the deposit will be labeled as one of the following [...] Google LLC EDI PYMNTS
https://support.google.com/admanager/answer/2731686?hl=en
That ad payments arrive labeled "Google LLC EDI PYMNTS" doesn't tell us that bug bounty payments would not also arrive with that label. In this case, the text probable means "[Google the Company] [Electronic Data Interchange] [Payments]" and I wouldn't expect that to be ads-specific?
(Disclosure: I used to work on ads at Google, but don't know anything internal here)
(Disclosure: I used to work on ads at Google, but don't know anything internal here)
Google makes every security researcher sign up as a vendor inside their procurement system, SAP Ariba. Seems likely that a payment for another vendor got misdirected by the procurement team as a result of this.
It took Google several years to notice tens of millions in fraudulent invoices from one guy: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/25/706715377/man-pleads-guilty-t...
If this had been kept quiet, I think the odds are high it would have never been noticed. I don't think Google has any of their own internal special sauce on their invoicing and payment. They are just as bad at it as everyone else.
If this had been kept quiet, I think the odds are high it would have never been noticed. I don't think Google has any of their own internal special sauce on their invoicing and payment. They are just as bad at it as everyone else.
Evaldas Rimasauskas was sentenced to 5 years in Federal prison, two years supervised release, and had to forfeit ~$75M out of the $120M he stole. I don't know what happened to the other $45M, but if he somehow kept it, that doesn't seem like much of a deterrent. I bet I could find millions of people willing to go to a minimum security Federal prison for $9M a year for a few years. I know I would.
I love these thought experiments.
I would very likely go for one year, but I think it's highly unlikely I'd go for two.
If I had to go for 5 years to get 45M, I think I'd pass. I definitely am not going to out-earn that or anything, I just value my time way, way too much, and value money way too little.
9M does a lot for my people and me, and after that I think I would just be helping out more people. They can suffer in their own prison!
If I could risk 5 years in prison for $120M, with a minimum guaranteed return of 45M and a maximum of 2-3 years? Yeah, I'd go for that, even if the chance to succeed without prison was pretty small, say 20%. The chance to escape punishment is a big motivator, and don't all of us think we're clever enough to do it?
Anyway, as you say, I'm the outlier. Almost everyone, even in the richest nation on earth, would accept that level of risk without a whole lot of thought.
I would very likely go for one year, but I think it's highly unlikely I'd go for two.
If I had to go for 5 years to get 45M, I think I'd pass. I definitely am not going to out-earn that or anything, I just value my time way, way too much, and value money way too little.
9M does a lot for my people and me, and after that I think I would just be helping out more people. They can suffer in their own prison!
If I could risk 5 years in prison for $120M, with a minimum guaranteed return of 45M and a maximum of 2-3 years? Yeah, I'd go for that, even if the chance to succeed without prison was pretty small, say 20%. The chance to escape punishment is a big motivator, and don't all of us think we're clever enough to do it?
Anyway, as you say, I'm the outlier. Almost everyone, even in the richest nation on earth, would accept that level of risk without a whole lot of thought.
Reminds me a bit of this true story
https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/102/
https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/102/
I wonder if there is a way to make it legal. Like turn it in as found and after a period if Google doesn't claim it.. At a minimum I would consult with a lawyer.
In common law countries, there is an extensive body of law about lost, mislaid, and abandoned property and how to deal with them. Lost, mislaid and abandoned are technically distinct classifications. Lost is a wallet on the side of the road. Mislaid is a wallet left on the counter at a store. Abandoned is something that was intentionally thrown away.
Abandoned property is basically finders keepers. Mislaid property should be left and the owner contacted, and the proprietor where it was left notified to help effect that. Lost property where the owner is known must also be returned. Lost or mislaid property might eventually be claimed when the return is impossible, for example, one cannot identify or contact owner after a long period, including perhaps posting public notices. At that point, it becomes considered abandoned.
Specifics vary a bit by jurisdiction, but I don't see it likely ever applying when you know who it came from and it's all on record. No reasonable person abandons cash in the wrong account. It is clearly mislaid. Maybe if they don't respond despite repeated formal contacts via legal channels. Obviously something to consult with a lawyer about over these kind of stakes...
Abandoned property is basically finders keepers. Mislaid property should be left and the owner contacted, and the proprietor where it was left notified to help effect that. Lost property where the owner is known must also be returned. Lost or mislaid property might eventually be claimed when the return is impossible, for example, one cannot identify or contact owner after a long period, including perhaps posting public notices. At that point, it becomes considered abandoned.
Specifics vary a bit by jurisdiction, but I don't see it likely ever applying when you know who it came from and it's all on record. No reasonable person abandons cash in the wrong account. It is clearly mislaid. Maybe if they don't respond despite repeated formal contacts via legal channels. Obviously something to consult with a lawyer about over these kind of stakes...
>Lost, mislaid and abandoned are technically distinct classifications.
Love that missing comma...
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned are *three technically distinct classifications.
Love that missing comma...
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned are *three technically distinct classifications.
I think that reading this sentence as "lost" and "mislaid and abandoned" is not likely. I believe most people would not use comma when they're enumerating 2 categories. E.g. "banana and apple are fruits" vs "banana, apple are fruits".
Serial comma isn't really required [in all dialects], and its use is mostly mandated where it resolves some ambiguity.
Serial comma isn't really required [in all dialects], and its use is mostly mandated where it resolves some ambiguity.
In context, with the explanatory sentences following, it's pretty much impossible to misread the idea.
the comma and adding "three" make this sentence worse imo. Don't care what the "proper" grammar rules say
> At a minimum I would consult with a lawyer
Which, if it turns out you cannot legally keep the money somehow, you just paid a ton of money for someone to basically tell you that you cannot have the money, so now you're paying money because Google sent you money.
Which, if it turns out you cannot legally keep the money somehow, you just paid a ton of money for someone to basically tell you that you cannot have the money, so now you're paying money because Google sent you money.
Well if you are already having trouble getting Google to pay attention to you and take back the money it might be cheaper to consult a lawyer than wasting more of your own time on the issue.
And then if you are considering the possibility of keeping it somehow I don't think you could afford to NOT consult a lawyer.
Either way it does seem like Google is going to end up costing you time/money :|
And then if you are considering the possibility of keeping it somehow I don't think you could afford to NOT consult a lawyer.
Either way it does seem like Google is going to end up costing you time/money :|
Maybe some lawyer would take it on a percentage contingency?
Law of course always depend on minutiae of jurisdictions involved, but generally procedure for "found" stuff is roughly "give it police and you may be eligible for bounty"
In Germany it would be legal to claim it after 4 years.
I once had a large company pay me 10x what they owed, and giving the extra back to them was quite a performance. I remember the long suffering lady in their accounts department saying that it was "like pushing the egg back up the chicken".
this could be an idea for the beggining of a nightmare tale.
A family strugling financially gets 250.000 from google but can never contact google because they are so difficult to reach but also can never use the money for fear of google noticing at some point and asking for the money back. Bank freezes account for suspect activity, irs audit and all kinds of hell...
A family strugling financially gets 250.000 from google but can never contact google because they are so difficult to reach but also can never use the money for fear of google noticing at some point and asking for the money back. Bank freezes account for suspect activity, irs audit and all kinds of hell...
FYI: The (Federal) statute of limitations on fraudulent bank transfers is 5 years. That's from a "they can prosecute you" standpoint. Various states have their own laws but in Florida (where I live) the undo button on the "oops, the bank/some company transferred a million into your account without noticing" is one year.
There's two reasons why the time frame is so short: 1) "It's their own damned fault." There's an expectation that of all the institutions that should have 100% control and visibility to all of their transactions it's banks and big businesses. 2) The longer funds have gone unreturned the more expensive and time consuming it (usually) is to trace where the money went. I don't know if one year is the optimal period for such tradeoff calculations (probably not) but it is what it is.
There's two reasons why the time frame is so short: 1) "It's their own damned fault." There's an expectation that of all the institutions that should have 100% control and visibility to all of their transactions it's banks and big businesses. 2) The longer funds have gone unreturned the more expensive and time consuming it (usually) is to trace where the money went. I don't know if one year is the optimal period for such tradeoff calculations (probably not) but it is what it is.
Its a bloody nightmare.
Anything above $10k triggers a bunch of bureaucracy but the money that causes and therefore to deal with this (lawyers, accountants, etc) is not theirs to keep.
They could end up paying thousands in fees, and have to wait years to get $80K back from the taxman
Anything above $10k triggers a bunch of bureaucracy but the money that causes and therefore to deal with this (lawyers, accountants, etc) is not theirs to keep.
They could end up paying thousands in fees, and have to wait years to get $80K back from the taxman
You are definitely overstating it. The bank is required to keep records and file paperwork (i.e., inform the IRS) on deposits of over $10,000, but other than that, nothing happens. I regularly receive large deposits from my place of employment that exceed $10,000. I file taxes just like every other person each year. Shoot, I've received refunds from the IRS that exceed that amount.
I got everything frozen over a 10k payment by my employer which the bank had the contract and prior transfers (same amount) of. I had to come to the bank office to clear it up; I was (of course) on the other side of world then trying to pay for my hotel room. Great fun.
I get deposits from Google over that amount quite frequently and nothing bad happens. I do pay taxes on my income of course, but it’s not that anything over $10K is automatically a problem. In this case, yes they will need to pay taxes on it if they keep it. That’s not imminent and I imagine this will get cleared up well before then. It’s amusing that they filed a support request, though, and are only going to get it resolved due to publicizing it on Twitter. We really need a better way to get help from these companies.
And google eventually shuts down the team that sent the money making it impossible for the family to connect with anyone about the money.
I like it... and as a result Google and their partners start to slowly ban and shadow ban the family from all kinds of services including identity services until the family slowly ceases to exist (digitally).
Move the money to another account so it can't easily be reversed (reversal is not easy, but you're up against Google)
You're in a nasty little situation and they're not answering their business phones. You're facing a $80k windfall tax liability you'll need cash to pay, and the possibility Google will wake up an demand their money back at the most inconvenient time (after taxes are due, etc).
You're in a nasty little situation and they're not answering their business phones. You're facing a $80k windfall tax liability you'll need cash to pay, and the possibility Google will wake up an demand their money back at the most inconvenient time (after taxes are due, etc).
you would have to be crazy to pay taxes on the 80k for that exact reason. I wouldnt even consider it, even if it were in my account for years.
[deleted]
I would send a certified letter, perhaps even drafted by one's attorney, to Google's legal correspondence address requiring them to resolve the situation.
The law firm is also going to have a trust account to hold the funds while the situation works itself out.
Where I live those trust accounts are interest-bearing, and the interest is swept into a state-run legal aid fund for the poor. So it would be a (very slight) added bonus that Google's payment mistake would have some societal benefit.
Anyway, Google's fiscal quarter ends in ~2 weeks. They'll probably notice it when they reconcile accounts for SEC reporting, starting Oct 1.
Where I live those trust accounts are interest-bearing, and the interest is swept into a state-run legal aid fund for the poor. So it would be a (very slight) added bonus that Google's payment mistake would have some societal benefit.
Anyway, Google's fiscal quarter ends in ~2 weeks. They'll probably notice it when they reconcile accounts for SEC reporting, starting Oct 1.
> They'll probably notice it when they reconcile accounts for SEC reporting, starting Oct 1.
$250k is rounding error territory at such a large organization. Not only that but the person in question is registered to receive bug bounties worth... $250k.
So no, I don't think they'd think twice about it when it comes time to reconcile the books.
$250k is rounding error territory at such a large organization. Not only that but the person in question is registered to receive bug bounties worth... $250k.
So no, I don't think they'd think twice about it when it comes time to reconcile the books.
That's just crazy. But totally believable.
So I guess the question then is: "at what point can you keep it/spend it without any legal concern?"
So I guess the question then is: "at what point can you keep it/spend it without any legal concern?"
>They'll probably notice it when they reconcile accounts for SEC reporting, starting Oct 1.
I know several accountants who do not work for trillion dollar companies. Variances in the millions are a daily thing. The more money moving around, the more unqualified people categorizing it and the more likely there is mystery money that cannot be rectified.
I know several accountants who do not work for trillion dollar companies. Variances in the millions are a daily thing. The more money moving around, the more unqualified people categorizing it and the more likely there is mystery money that cannot be rectified.
>Where I live those trust accounts are interest-bearing, and the interest is swept into a state-run legal aid fund for the poor. So it would be a (very slight) added bonus that Google's payment mistake would have some societal benefit.
Realistically speaking the interest would get soaked up by the banks providing that account, because they'll be paying a pitiful rate[1] of 0.01% or whatever, whereas the prevailing rate for short term deposits is around 2.5%[2].
[1] random result: https://www.chase.com/personal/savings/savings-account/inter...
[2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...
Realistically speaking the interest would get soaked up by the banks providing that account, because they'll be paying a pitiful rate[1] of 0.01% or whatever, whereas the prevailing rate for short term deposits is around 2.5%[2].
[1] random result: https://www.chase.com/personal/savings/savings-account/inter...
[2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...
This is the most practical and likely-to-succeed response I've seen here so far.
They don’t reply to any of my support tickets… if they’re too cool to help your grandma, then they can lay in the bed they made.
I used to work for a company optimising business processes. You’d all be surprised by just how much money large companies waste by paying invoices twice and/or paying invoices that nobody can trace back to a purchase order.
Ah yes, the "three-way match" problem.
You have purchase orders going out, invoices coming in, and products coming in. It's not always easy to associate all three with eachother in the real world.
Why are companies so unresponsive to customer service complaints? Surely 1000 Google employees have seen this post
Nobody at Google is going to get a promotion for solving this
Does Google have an internal form for employees with the option: "person on internet accidently received money from us"?
Do those 1,000 people even care, or hope the person gets to keep it, or maybe it's the Bystander Effect?
Do those 1,000 people even care, or hope the person gets to keep it, or maybe it's the Bystander Effect?
It’s Somebody Else’s Problem.
Just don't buy a mansion, they might sue you for it back a year later like crypto.com did
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/01/cry...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/01/cry...
Just stick it in a high interest savings account and enjoy the free gains for every month until they claim it back
Won't it be a problem come tax season? He would have to report that as income which will cost more than the interest he will get from a high yield acct
The interest might be taxed as income depending on where you live, but I don't see how the erroneous transfer would be considered income if you have to give it back.
But if it was not an erroneous transfer (maybe, as some have speculated, an unannounced bug bounty) and this is not made clear before estimated tax payments are due, I suspect the default IRS response will be to charge penalties and interest on any late payments. One might get them waived, but not without considerable trouble and cost.
The IRS is pretty chill if you aren't purposely trying to evade taxes.
As a college student working multiple jobs, I had complicated taxes for a bit. Years later, the IRS sent me a letter that said "you forgot to declare this W2, so you owe us $270". I get nervous about phone calls and couldn't find a web portal to pay it, so I uh, "put it off" for a while. I never actually got in contact with the IRS. They just sent me a letter the next two years saying they took my state tax refund to pay it off and now it's done. I think I spent a couple bucks on interest over the course of multiple years.
People have this weird concept that the IRS will do no knock raids on normal average americans for simple mixups. This perception is mostly driven by people who are ideologically against taxes entirely. Instead, the IRS is predominantly average people with accounting experience who are used to getting simple money mistakes solved. They also don't want to take you to court because they don't have enough money in their budget to take everyone they could to court.
As a college student working multiple jobs, I had complicated taxes for a bit. Years later, the IRS sent me a letter that said "you forgot to declare this W2, so you owe us $270". I get nervous about phone calls and couldn't find a web portal to pay it, so I uh, "put it off" for a while. I never actually got in contact with the IRS. They just sent me a letter the next two years saying they took my state tax refund to pay it off and now it's done. I think I spent a couple bucks on interest over the course of multiple years.
People have this weird concept that the IRS will do no knock raids on normal average americans for simple mixups. This perception is mostly driven by people who are ideologically against taxes entirely. Instead, the IRS is predominantly average people with accounting experience who are used to getting simple money mistakes solved. They also don't want to take you to court because they don't have enough money in their budget to take everyone they could to court.
[deleted]
Unless there's a 1099 sent to the IRS and the receiver, why would one report it as income?
Because if it was legally income, it is a crime not to report it. If the IRS discovers it later, they can charge you the taxes, plus interest, plus penalties, and in some cases prosecute you criminally (see Al Capone). Whether it needs to be legally reported as income or not is not determined by whether someone else already filed paperwork for it or not. I don't know if this would need to be reported as income or not, under what circumstances; I'd talk to a lawyer or CPA. whether someone filed a 1099 or not is not determinative.
But it can’t be income if he has to give it back, which is the starting assumption here.
I'd talk to a lawyer or accountant when dealing with a mystery $250K instead of making "starting assumptions". It's certainly not determined by whether a 1099 was filed.
Lol. I’d start with the very safe assumption that I’m not going to be able to keep $250k that was clearly given to me by mistake.
I absolutely love that (see Al Capone) is the example used while discussing some dude who was accidentally sent money by google.
Hey, he was prosecuted for not reporting income that definitely nobody filed a 1099 for. :)
If you run a business, do all of your customers send you a 1099 for the money they pay you? No, that would be wild. Your revenue is still income (corporate or individual income). 1099s are only applicable for certain situations.
I'd say for $250K, it's definitely a good idea to talk to a lawyer, asap, rather than try to handle this DIY. The lawyer will probably put it in an interest-bearing escrow/trust account, but they'll make sure it's done right.
For tax purposes, consider it as a loan.
lol this would be a fantastic study of how closely tied your Gmail account is to your identity :) Granted it's a study of N=1.
But if you were to say "close down" all your Gmail accounts (I presume you have them) Will Big-G find you or deem it worthwhile for you to be found ?
But if you were to say "close down" all your Gmail accounts (I presume you have them) Will Big-G find you or deem it worthwhile for you to be found ?
It should be trivial for a company the size of Google to have their lawyers speak with authorities in say California and file theft charges against you. I’d bet some Google employees have direct lines to police and prosecutors.
Alternatively, a company the size of Google may be so huge and bureaucratic that it's not worth anyone's time to track down a mere $250 grand.
Presumably if Google was able to send him $250k they already have his actual identity, right?
Pay off any student loans.
If Google wants the money back, at least you can now file bankruptcy.
If Google wants the money back, at least you can now file bankruptcy.
Not sure if I'd trade $250k for bankruptcy with the earning potential of a decent software engineer in the US labor market? It's so-so though.
Bankruptcy does not change your ability to be employed.
I have heard of employers doing a credit check, or making it part of the hiring background check. This may tend to only affect the not-highest-paying types of employers that also require a drug test, though.
I'm not sure of the implications on employment, but I imagine it has implications on ability to get credit (e.g. for morgage) which can be meaningful in the US (and other places of course).
Unless you’re looking for a job in finance
[deleted]
Not the same scope, but I bought some photobooks from Google. They put a temp charge on my card, which isn't unusual, at checkout. Then it went away. And it went away for good. Happy for the free photobooks. ~$100 I didn't have to spend.
Google sent me 3 Nest Wi-Fi’s when one broke and I called their support. They just kept coming over and over
Careful with tax implications!
There is no tax implication of being incorrectly wired money. This money is not his.
If they do not claw it back before tax time what do you do? Claim it as income and pay tax and then refile your return later? Ignore it and hope the bank didn’t report it? What if Google then also 1099s you?
You don’t claim as income something which is not income. There is no question here. It doesn’t matter if the bank report it. This is not his money. Google won’t 1099 you for money they shouldn’t have wired you.
I mean technically if they fill a 1099 for this, the money is yours. Congratulations, you are now 250,000$ richer and owe back taxes to the IRS.
I mean technically if they fill a 1099 for this, the money is yours. Congratulations, you are now 250,000$ richer and owe back taxes to the IRS.
Ya its a bloody nightmare made worse by Google's wall of impenetrability.
You ask your accountant what to do.
Careful, my grandmother almost got scammed by a lawyer she knew and had done business with for decades. She is an accountant. He was leveraging her trust in him to get her to sign a power of attorney granting him control of her finances and estate after her death (intermixed in a bunch of estate planning docs). She was about 80 at the time but was still able to catch it.
Don't trust anyone.
Don't trust anyone.
[deleted]
That’s reason enough to disbar a lawyer. I hope she reported him.
Unfortunately, the situation sounds right in line with a rich individual engaging a trusted attorney up to be their neutral PoA/executor/trustee (as opposed to one of their heirs). So the attorney would likely make the case that they thought this is what the client wanted. The potential to go south only occurs after death/incapacitation where the attorney can drag out the estate/trust because they're taking administration fees.
Please go ahead and report it. I just don't think the interpretation will be so clear cut.
Please go ahead and report it. I just don't think the interpretation will be so clear cut.
You just leave it aside until you figure out it's status. Since it's pretty likely the money will be returned, I don't think this is a controversial take.
Maybe just wait until next October and contact the IRS and see what 1099s have been filed using your name.
My amateur analysis -
If OP really has no idea why the payment was sent and does not feel entitled to it, I'd judge it as not being income in the current year. While OP is in possession of it (per "cash basis"), it's only by clerical error. They're not free to do with the money as they'd like (eg spend it), and thus they're in the position of a trustee rather than someone who has received personal income. Remember, not every payment coming into your bank account is a taxable event.
If OP receives a 1099 for it, or they file their taxes and then receive a notice that the IRS has a 1099, then they declare it as income (since the 1099 indicates the payment had intent), distribute the money to themselves by moving it to a different account where it can't be ACH reversed, and consider the matter settled.
Failing that, if some time down the line Google confirms it as a legitimate payment or the clock runs out, then you distribute it to yourself and declare it as income at the time of distribution, regardless of the missing 1099.
Alternatively, if Google demands/pulls the payment back and you haven't paid taxes on it, case closed.
If Google does somehow issue a 1099 and then later ends up demanding the money back, then I'd say OP has a strong case that at the very least Google owes them for all the resulting damage of having to refile their taxes, etc. And given that OP is in possession of the money and outside the ACH reversal window, Google would have to mount a legal offense to get it back where OP could argue this point.
If OP really has no idea why the payment was sent and does not feel entitled to it, I'd judge it as not being income in the current year. While OP is in possession of it (per "cash basis"), it's only by clerical error. They're not free to do with the money as they'd like (eg spend it), and thus they're in the position of a trustee rather than someone who has received personal income. Remember, not every payment coming into your bank account is a taxable event.
If OP receives a 1099 for it, or they file their taxes and then receive a notice that the IRS has a 1099, then they declare it as income (since the 1099 indicates the payment had intent), distribute the money to themselves by moving it to a different account where it can't be ACH reversed, and consider the matter settled.
Failing that, if some time down the line Google confirms it as a legitimate payment or the clock runs out, then you distribute it to yourself and declare it as income at the time of distribution, regardless of the missing 1099.
Alternatively, if Google demands/pulls the payment back and you haven't paid taxes on it, case closed.
If Google does somehow issue a 1099 and then later ends up demanding the money back, then I'd say OP has a strong case that at the very least Google owes them for all the resulting damage of having to refile their taxes, etc. And given that OP is in possession of the money and outside the ACH reversal window, Google would have to mount a legal offense to get it back where OP could argue this point.
if google 1099s you thats an admission that they do in fact owe you money
what exactly do yo think the bank would be reporting to the IRS?
[deleted]
There should be an adverse possession for money put in your account that you pay taxes on.
That's a very optimistic view of how the government would interpret this.
But there are tax implications come April when the taxman wants a cut and Google might only get around to demand its money back a few years from now.
Sure you can refile your taxes then, but that will suck
Sure you can refile your taxes then, but that will suck
The taxman can’t take a cut of property that isn’t yours.
Imagine you own land that has a parking lot on it. Someone parks their $250k lambo on your land and leaves it there for a few months. You don’t get taxed on that.
You certainly don’t report owning a new $250k lambo, and then later amend your tax return when the owner comes back, that would be a false report.
Imagine you own land that has a parking lot on it. Someone parks their $250k lambo on your land and leaves it there for a few months. You don’t get taxed on that.
You certainly don’t report owning a new $250k lambo, and then later amend your tax return when the owner comes back, that would be a false report.
But if someone stuffs money in an envelope and slips it under your door, the taxman could very well argue that it is yours and want their cut.
It has been my experience that the IRS is extremely accommodating and will work with anyone who is honest and direct about their issues.
The conversation would probably go like this:
Dude: "Hey taxman Google sent me money but it's not mine"
IRS: "Ok don't spend it or it becomes income, if it turns out it was yours file an amended return. Contact us and reference this conversation and any penalties will be waived."
The IRS is not extremely accommodating and will not work with someone who is dishonest or evasive about their issues.
The conversation would probably go like this:
Dude: "Hey taxman Google sent me money but it's not mine"
IRS: "Ok don't spend it or it becomes income, if it turns out it was yours file an amended return. Contact us and reference this conversation and any penalties will be waived."
The IRS is not extremely accommodating and will not work with someone who is dishonest or evasive about their issues.
That all being said, you can run into the same issue you can run into with _any_ official; if you happen to encounter one of the bad eggs, your entire life can be turned upside down. You get the person as the IRS that decides you were supposed to pay taxes on it and now you owe penalties, and then you can't get anyone to overturn that. Then Google comes and wants its money back, but the IRS has already said you owe taxes and penalties, and bad egg has decided you contradicted him once, you you can go suck an egg.
Yes, in most cases, government agencies will work with you and behave rationally. But one time in <some large number>, things go a different direction. And the people with the power can turn your life into a nightmare without batting an eyelash.
I would get a lawyer, someone that knows how to best protect you from the system.
Yes, in most cases, government agencies will work with you and behave rationally. But one time in <some large number>, things go a different direction. And the people with the power can turn your life into a nightmare without batting an eyelash.
I would get a lawyer, someone that knows how to best protect you from the system.
The IRS doesn’t arbitrarily tax random things. That’s just not how it works. Also you can obviously sue the IRS and get wrongful penalties overturned.
Interesting. I couldnt get anyone to talk with me at the IRS. I eventually resolved my issues through my senator (his office contacted the IRS and worked out all the details for me).
If you come home and find an envelope of money slipped under your door which shouldn’t have been given to you and bring it to the police, you will never be taxed on it.
Anyway the correct analogy here would be incorrectly receiving from someone you know payment in cash which should have been given to someone else. You realise the mistake when you are back home so you bring it back later. You obviously didn’t owe taxes while you were merely storing the money which wasn’t yours in the first place.
Anyway the correct analogy here would be incorrectly receiving from someone you know payment in cash which should have been given to someone else. You realise the mistake when you are back home so you bring it back later. You obviously didn’t owe taxes while you were merely storing the money which wasn’t yours in the first place.
Call a lawyer, try to keep the money. That's it.
Why do they pay $249,999.99 instead of a round $250,000? Is it for tax reasons (different bracket)?
I think it would upset me a bit to not have that last cent there. Feels disrespectful in some way.
I think it would upset me a bit to not have that last cent there. Feels disrespectful in some way.
Tax is always on margin, so making more to put you into a different “bracket” does nothing. The only thing this could change is if they couldn’t pay $250k without THEIR burden changing in regards to how they’re paying you, but seems unlikely.
Just to expand on this as I think this is a fairly common misconception about how tax brackets work:
Say you have two tax brackets:
$0 - $100: 10%
$101 - $200: 15%
If you make $150, the entire $150 is not taxed at 15%. The first $100 is taxed at 10%, and the remaining $50 is taxed at 15%.
This is why being in a higher tax bracket is never (edit: usually not) a bad thing - you can't net less than you would have in the lower bracket.
Say you have two tax brackets:
$0 - $100: 10%
$101 - $200: 15%
If you make $150, the entire $150 is not taxed at 15%. The first $100 is taxed at 10%, and the remaining $50 is taxed at 15%.
This is why being in a higher tax bracket is never (edit: usually not) a bad thing - you can't net less than you would have in the lower bracket.
A common belief based on that common misunderstanding of tax brackets is that when rich people give to charity the deduction saves them more in taxes than the amount they gave.
For example if the person in your example made $105 and gave $5 to charity and brackets worked the way the common misconception worked that would reduce their taxes from $15.75 to $10, saving them $5.75 in taxes which is indeed more than their $5 donation, and they do indeed come out $0.75 ahead of where they would have been had they not donated.
In reality, taxes without the donation would be $10.75 and the donation reduces taxes to $10, giving them a tax saving of $0.75 for their $5 donation, leaving them $4.25 behind where they would have been had they not donated.
Note: there may be other tax consequences besides the deduction for the donation itself for some charity donations that also provide benefits, which might make a donation a net monetary gain for the donor.
For example if the person in your example made $105 and gave $5 to charity and brackets worked the way the common misconception worked that would reduce their taxes from $15.75 to $10, saving them $5.75 in taxes which is indeed more than their $5 donation, and they do indeed come out $0.75 ahead of where they would have been had they not donated.
In reality, taxes without the donation would be $10.75 and the donation reduces taxes to $10, giving them a tax saving of $0.75 for their $5 donation, leaving them $4.25 behind where they would have been had they not donated.
Note: there may be other tax consequences besides the deduction for the donation itself for some charity donations that also provide benefits, which might make a donation a net monetary gain for the donor.
It took me a bit to realize that people would think 105 taxed at 10% on the first 100 and 15% on the last 5 until I realized the idea is that people think that someone making 105 has the full 105 taxed at 15%.
They do it by buying lots of artwork for $, sell one piece for $$ to their crony, donate the rest as valued at $$$, saving $$$-$ off their taxes.
> This is why being in a higher tax bracket is never a bad thing - you can't net less than you would have in the lower bracket.
It's a bad thing if you could defer realizing that higher-bracket income to a low-income year.
It's a bad thing if you could defer realizing that higher-bracket income to a low-income year.
In some countries, depending on your max bracket you may or not be eligible for some breaks, meaning the extra $1 can in fact be a bad thing.
For example in my country the amount you can deduct on health/education expenses depends on the bracket you are placed in.
For example in my country the amount you can deduct on health/education expenses depends on the bracket you are placed in.
This is true, but in this instance a $250k payment likely negates all benefits you’d be eligible for either way.
Something somewhere had 250k as a limit (up to but not including) - many companies have things like payments above 250k must be signed by a VP or something.
Quality bantz from the peanut gallery