Conference 7.286::dcu

I asked my accountant (name on req.).  She basically said that if you
were subject to backup withholding, you'd know it. (A few rare
individuals in unusual tax situations fall into this category). Most
of us will just sign and return the form and move on.... 

Of course, if you fail to supply a valid social security number, you
are then subject to the backup withholding as well. 

By the way, does anyone think that DCU should have mailed these forms 
with the statements, and provided collection boxes at the branches, 
instead of spending close to $1/account in postage and handling?  
That's close to $100,000 that could have been paid in interest....

> By the way, does anyone think that DCU should have mailed these forms 
> with the statements, and provided collection boxes at the branches, 
> instead of spending close to $1/account in postage and handling?  
> That's close to $100,000 that could have been paid in interest....
    
    DCU already does everything the post office asked for to save money
    on postage.  Usually this means sorting the mail by zip code.  If
    DCU were to start saving the mail to send it out once a month, they
    would have to hire several people or another company to sort the
    mail so that each stack has mail for only one person.  This would
    eventually lead to errors, which could mean, that financial statements
    going to the wrong people.
    

    I agree with .2 (Jeff?). It would seem to make sense that a savings
    would have resulted if the forms and the statements went out together.
    .3 has a point that might be solved by getting the statement software
    to add the form as the last page of the statement. Then again, some
    folks might miss the form because they don't inspect the statements.
    
    It may make logical sense to combine this type of mailing and save
    money, but the practical solution may have been the one selected
    by the DCU.
    
    Carl

Thanks all, especially Jeff.

Having worked on a few mailings for non-profit organizations, I can easily
understand how DCU may have chosen to spend more on postage in order to
save on wages, mistakes, confusion, and general hassle.  As long as they
proceed in a responsible, cost-effective, well-managed way, I feel that
it's reasonable for DCU to spend whatever it takes to communicate with the
membership. 

But I think I have a valid beef about the letter.  It explains, in clear 
and patient (albeit awkward) sixth-grade English, what DCU wants me to do,
why DCU wants me to do it, and what could happen if I don't.  So far it's
great; I applaud the trend toward plain English, rather than gratuitous
legalese, in contracts, warrantees, insurance policies, and the like. 

But then DCU drops the ball.  There are three check-boxes on the form, and
DCU's letter only explains two of them.  The only information available
about the third box is printed on the form:  the IRC reference, and the
tax-jargon phrase "backup withholding".  I expect the DCU to explain that
box to me as well, in a manner consistent with its explanation of the first
two.  It might have been imprudent for DCU to say "if it affects you,
you'll know it", but surely they could have figured out something to say -
at least to characterize the sort of taxpayers that should be concerned
about it. 

It's this lack of consistency, this failure to meet the expectation that
was set by the tone of the letter, that bothers me more than the lack of
information.  Does anybody agree, or am I just over-reacting to the phrase
"under penalty of perjury"? 

        Perish the thought, but it's just possible that the contents
        of the form, and even the way in which it was mailed, were
        spelled out by some bizarre IRS regulation.  I don't know,
        but it wouldn't surprise me.
        
        I agree that it would have been nice to have some explanation
        of the third box, and probably wouldn't have cost much extra
        to print it.  But in our litigious society, there may have
        been risk in doing anything less than printing, verbatim, the
        wording of the relevant section of the IRS code, without any
        interpretation or explanation.
        
        Tom

    There's one thing that bothered me about the DCU's request for
    verification of taxpayer numbers.
    
    I think they've done this before -- maybe two or three years ago
    -- but I'm not sure.  Does anyone remember it?
    
    The letter does not explain why I'm being asked every so many years
    to provide the same number over and over again.
    
    Bob