Graham Bonnet -  Discovered the source of the misunderstanding - should have used nonvalid - not invalid.

Quoted from joebxr

OK, dumb question....
Vehicles in dispute are for Forensic Techs...right?
They do not need to fly to crime scenes with sirens and lights blazing...right?
Why can't they drive their own vehicles to the Police Stations, p/u at 4wd (or other vehcile) and then go to crime scene?  Why do they really need to drive vehicles home for their use?

I've seen so many Trooper vehicles used as personal transport, too and it frustrates me....

I bet Dexter would know......

I am exceedingly happy to tell you that my prediction is that the First Responders will continue to receive the BEST equipment that they have requested and the whole matter of using them as the whipping boy is moot.   the votes are NOT there to strip the Police of the tools they NEED.  that is ALL I have to say on this particular matter.

Quoted from Hamburg

I am exceedingly happy to tell you that my prediction is that the First Responders will continue to receive the BEST equipment that they have requested and the whole matter of using them as the whipping boy is moot.   the votes are NOT there to strip the Police of the tools they NEED.  that is ALL I have to say on this particular matter.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........of course they will.....and they will use it to break down your door, blast into your basement, toss your PC into a dufflebag(because you don't fit)
grab your mashmallow a$$ and wrap your hands with plastic ties, drag you bumping your chin, up each step and have the help of 6 officers to toss your a$$ into that tahoe...oh wait, they
are returning to the basement to get your multiple flashdrives....for evidence of course.....you will be bagged and tagged....fancy bracelet and all......

beep beep beep.....YOU MAY NOT LEAVE THE PERIMETER OR YOUR BLOOD WILL BOIL AND YOU WILL EXPLODE....message from your friendly neighborhood government/TSA/police

have a nice day,,,,and remember to eat Taco Bell

Quoted from Hamburg

I am exceedingly happy to tell you that my prediction is that the First Responders will continue to receive the BEST equipment that they have requested and the whole matter of using them as the whipping boy is moot.   the votes are NOT there to strip the Police of the tools they NEED.  that is ALL I have to say on this particular matter.

Hamburg, a "first responder" would be an EMT, a fire vehicle, an ambulace.

A "first responder" is NOT someone who comes to take photos.   Police arrive at crime scenes in their EXISTING patrol cars.   If there is a need to get an evidence person, the police officers (who arrived BY CAR AND ARE ALREADY ON THE SCENE will secure the area until evidence techs can arrive, there is NO NEED WHATSOEVER for these techs to be given expensive vehicles that they can drive far far far awat out of the city!  

Hamburg, it is an undispuated FACT that the homeonwers in the city pay almost the highest property taxes in the whole USA.   These vehicles---that you endorse, are subsntially more expensive.   Also it is not only the added capital cost of purchasing such vehicles, but because the cops live so far outside the city, there is cost associated with wear and tear on the car plus the extra gas cost to travel perhaps 40, 50, 60 miles round trip each day.   On top of the taxes of these expensive vehicles, the uncessary wear and tear and miliage (resulting from cops who take the cars outside city limits), the police get paid easily $100,000 a year, get lavish and extravagant insurance and pension---most taxpayers don't have insurnace or pensions.

So, answer this:    Do you believe the city police officers should be forced to live in the city which would reduce the expense?    Yes or No.   Can you answer that?    

Quoted from Hamburg

INOT there to strip the Police of the tools they NEED.  .

Explain how it is a NEED for the police to live far far far away from the city

Quoted from mikechristine1

Hamburg, a "first responder" would be an EMT, a fire vehicle, an ambulace.

A "first responder" is NOT someone who comes to take photos.   Police arrive at crime scenes in their EXISTING patrol cars.   If there is a need to get an evidence person, the police officers (who arrived BY CAR AND ARE ALREADY ON THE SCENE will secure the area until evidence techs can arrive, there is NO NEED WHATSOEVER for these techs to be given expensive vehicles that they can drive far far far awat out of the city!  

Hamburg, it is an undispuated FACT that the homeonwers in the city pay almost the highest property taxes in the whole USA.   These vehicles---that you endorse, are subsntially more expensive.   Also it is not only the added capital cost of purchasing such vehicles, but because the cops live so far outside the city, there is cost associated with wear and tear on the car plus the extra gas cost to travel perhaps 40, 50, 60 miles round trip each day.   On top of the taxes of these expensive vehicles, the uncessary wear and tear and miliage (resulting from cops who take the cars outside city limits), the police get paid easily $100,000 a year, get lavish and extravagant insurance and pension---most taxpayers don't have insurnace or pensions.

So, answer this:    Do you believe the city police officers should be forced to live in the city which would reduce the expense?    Yes or No.   Can you answer that?    

YES.....it scares away the 'organized'.....although Schenectady being the one to raise it's hand for redlining(without the words), the police actually become more like 'public correction officers'..

Quoted from Shadow

People are starting to find out why their taxes are so high and this proves why these public contracts need to be renegotiated.

This is a small, yet HUGE step forward in the right direction for the City of Schenectady taxpayers.

Hamburg/DV is nervous because this is the beginning of the end of the DEM rubber stamping of every asinine, fiscally irresponsible request which has, thus far, never been questioned by the City Council...and for decades.

For the first time in many, many years the City Council (a big thank you Vince Riggi) is doing their job. They are ASKING WHY...not simply allowing and paying for every single item which comes before them.

Even without a majority, Vince Riggi is doing what no other person has EVER done on the Council before, he is putting the power back in the hands of the leaders of the City and out of the grasp of the Unions and chosen few.

Finally...the taxpayers have a guardian angel.

Quoted Text

Don’t give out-oftown cops free SUVs to commute to Sch’dy in

    The Jan. 19 article by Kathleen Moore, “New SUVs for commuting cops stalled with impasse in council,” was very informative.
    First, let me say thank goodness for the intelligence of half of the City Council representatives. Spending $26,000 for someone to ride to and from another county is absurd. I find it even more appalling that there is an agreement on the books to let them take the vehicle out of the city. If it is so important for them to report to the scene quickly, they should live in the city. Obviously, there isn’t a question of elapsed time regarding the estimated time of arrival back to the city from Saratoga County.
    The office where I work is in Saratoga County, and many mornings I pass a Schenectady police Explorer SUV on its way to the city — which I always thought was odd. Now I’m disgusted, knowing that some of my tax dollars are paying for this person to drive back and forth in a vehicle newer than mine, with free gas, insurance and maintenance. They certainly don’t need a four-wheel drive vehicle, either.
    My trip to and from the offi ce near Northway Exit 10 takes 35 to 45 minutes, depending on traffic. So if these technicians are coming in from this area, or somewhere else in Saratoga County, there isn’t any urgency. Therefore, they should drive their own vehicles to the police station and start their day like all normal working people.
    All workers would love to be given a vehicle to drive back and forth, plus free gas, insurance and maintenance. The city garage workers have other things they should be doing rather than working on routine maintenance for these vehicles.
    Way to go, council members Riggi, Blanchard and Erikson, who are digging in on this issue. The taxes are too high in this city for this type of waste. If you don’t want to live in the city, that’s OK, but don’t expect already strapped taxpayers to pay for your travel back and forth.
    As I see it, half of the council understands what the word representative means; the remaining members should learn its meaning.
    A council representative means you speak for the people. I wonder what people council President Denise Brucker is talking to, where she can say she would support the Tahoes and further strapping the taxpayers.
    For the seventh seat on the council, an average person should be appointed — someone without their heads and egos in the clouds. But all of us know that will never happen.

    DON TROJAK
    Schenectady

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00703&AppName=1

Taxing and Reporting the Personal Use of Employer-Provided Vehicles on Payroll-Taxes.com
by Robert W. Ditmer, CPP*

Many companies today purchase or lease vehicles that are used by employees in the course of doing business. However, in many cases employees are allowed by employers to use these vehicles for personal use. In most cases, this personal use is a taxable fringe benefit, and employers are responsible for withholding taxes on this benefit.

But this process is often complicated by the fact that the fair market value of a vehicle is not determined by the actual cost of the vehicle. It is determined by calculating how much an employee would have to pay to lease a comparable vehicle in an arms-length transaction. The rules can be complicated, and employers should follow the guidelines provided in Internal Revenue Service Publication 15-B, Employer’s Tax Guide to Fringe Benefits.

Taxability of the Personal Use of Company-Provided Vehicles

The general rule for taxing fringe benefits is that all fringe benefits are taxable to the recipient based on the fair market value (FMV), and the provider of the benefit is responsible for withholding federal income taxes, FICA taxes (social security and Medicare), and FUTA taxes. The taxes may be withheld from the recipient’s cash compensation. The fair market value of the fringe benefit may be reduced, however, by the following amounts:

Any amount that the law excludes from compensation; and
Any amount that the recipient pays for the benefit.
Personal use of employer-provided vehicles is a non-cash fringe benefit, so its value must be determined at least once a year. The FMV of the benefit is subject to tax withholding at the time the value is determined by the employer. It may be added to the employee’s regular compensation and the necessary taxes withheld from the employee’s regular compensation. Some employers may choose to determine the FMV more frequently, such as monthly.

Since it is a non-cash fringe benefit, the special accounting rule can be used when taxing and reporting its value. So what is the special accounting rule? The special accounting rule allows an employer to include the value of a fringe benefit for the last two months of the calendar year with the value for the first ten months of the following year. Why might an employer do this? In the case of some fringe benefits an employer may not be able to determine the value of the benefit until after the end of a month. For instance, an employer might not be able to determine the value of personal use for a company-provided vehicle until after the employee turns in his mileage logs in the following month. So using mileage logs turned in during November 2010, the employer can determine the value of personal use for the period of November 1, 2009, to October 31, 2010.

It is important to remember that if an employer uses the special accounting rule for one type of fringe benefit for one employee, it must use it for all employees. And employers must also inform employees that they are using the special accounting rule because the employees must also use the special accounting rule if the employer elects to use it.

Some employers may provide company-owned vehicles to employees without requiring the employee to document personal use. In such cases, the entire FMV of the vehicles must be included in the employee’s income. The employee has the option of calculating and deducting the business use of the vehicle on his personal Form 1040.

Since the fair market value (FMV) of a company-provided vehicle is not dependent on the actual cost of the vehicle, the IRS has provided three primary methods of determining the FMV of the vehicle: (1) the commuting rule, (2) the cents-per-mile rule, and (3) the annual lease value.

Commuting Rule

If the only personal use of an employer-provided vehicle is commuting to and from work, then the employer can use the commuting rule. The value of each one-way commute is $1.50, and either the value has to be included in the employee’s wages or the employee can reimburse the employer this amount.

The commuting rule is the easiest method to use because it does not require employees to keep mileage logs of vehicle use, and it is the easiest for employers to administer. However, employers can use this rule only if four requirements are met:

The employer provides the vehicle to the employee for use in the employer’s trade or business.


The employer has a written policy that does not allow the employee to use the vehicle for personal purposes, “other than for commuting or de minimus personal use (such as a stop for a personal errand on the way between a business delivery and the employee’s home).”


The employee in reality does not use the vehicle for personal purposes.
The employee is not a control employee. Control employees are defined in Publication 15-B.
Cents-Per-Mile Rule

The cents-per-mile rule is based on the IRS standard mileage rate. For 2008, the standard mileage rate is 58.5 cents a mile. Employees must either reimburse the employer at this rate for all personal miles driven in an employer-provided vehicle, or the value will be added to the employee’s taxable income. If the employer does not provide the fuel for the car, the rate can be reduced by 5.5 cents per mile.

The use of this rule has a number of restrictive requirements:

Maximum value – The value of the vehicle at the time it is made available to employees cannot exceed the maximum value established by the IRS each year.
Regular use in your business – The vehicle must be used for business reasons for at least 50% of the annual mileage.
Mileage test – The vehicle must actually be driven at least 10,000 miles during the year (or proportionately if the vehicle is used less than a full year).
Employee use – The vehicle must be used during the year primarily by employees.
Consistency requirements – The method must be used for later years except for specific circumstances outlined in Publication 15-B.
The cents-per-mile rate includes the value of maintenance and insurance. If the employer does not pay for maintenance and/or insurance and the employee is required to cover those costs, the value of the personal use is actually reduced by the expenses incurred by the employee, as long as the employee provides actual receipts.

See the attached exhibit for an example calculation using the cents-per-mile method.

Annual Lease Value

Using the annual lease value method is different from the other methods because instead of calculating the employee’s personal use of the vehicle, the IRS rules state that the employer has to calculate how much of the vehicle’s FMV can be excluded from the employee’s income as a working condition fringe benefit. In other words, calculate the FMV of the vehicle, calculate the FMV of the business use of the vehicle, and then calculate the difference as the taxable fringe benefit. (But let’s be reasonable. The net effect is the same if we simply calculate the personal use of the vehicle, so that’s what we will actually be doing.)

According to the instructions on page 20 of Publication 15-B, the FMV has to be determined on the first date it is available for use by an employee. Use the IRS-provided table to determine the annual lease value.

Once the annual lease value has been determined, the employer must determine how much of the vehicle’s use is personal. If the vehicle is used by the employee for both business and personal use, the employee must keep mileage logs indicating how the car was used. The personal use value is based on the percentage of use.

The annual lease value does not include the cost of gasoline. An employer can either determine the value of personal use based on the fair market value of gasoline (which is possible if the employer provides all gasoline) or at the rate of 5.5 cents per mile.

If an employee does not keep mileage records, then the entire lease value, plus gasoline costs, is taxable to the employee.

See the attached exhibit for an example calculation using the annual lease value method.

Conclusion

In order to conduct business in today's competitive economic market, many companies must provide transportation for their employees. Instead of bearing the cost of storing and maintaining these vehicles, companies can have employees maintain the vehicles, and in turn employees are allowed to use the vehicles for personal use. But it is important for these companies to remember that such use is a taxable fringe benefit, and employers must withhold income taxes on the value of this personal use. If employers follow the guidelines presented above, then they will be able to determine the value of such personal use as well as comply with all taxing and reporting requirements.

It sounds like, according to DV, it is a done deal. The cops will get what they want. End of story.

The tax thing isnt a choice.  The employee using the vehicle and the employer need to comply to the federal law.  Otherwise it is tax evasion plain and simple.  

Quoted from TakingItBack

The tax thing isnt a choice.  The employee using the vehicle and the employer need to comply to the federal law.  Otherwise it is tax evasion plain and simple.  

I'll venture a guess and say that the trip to/from home and back - in this Schenectady city situation only - is somehow defined as something other than "travel to and from work with employer provided vehicle," that is, there probably is some loophole that's considered the equivalent of being on patrol.  Think of it this way.  If Officer X drives such city vehicle to & from his home in Saratoga Co, is there a difference when he leaves his home at 6 a.m. to drive to his normal shift that starts at 7:00 a.m. as opposed to him receiving a phone call at 2:00 a.m. that he is needed right away, and and thus commences his trip at 2:00 a.m.  

No matter what, the taxpayers are SCREWED!

Quoted from mikechristine1

I'll venture a guess and say that the trip to/from home and back - in this Schenectady city situation only - is somehow defined as something other than "travel to and from work with employer provided vehicle," that is, there probably is some loophole that's considered the equivalent of being on patrol.  Think of it this way.  If Officer X drives such city vehicle to & from his home in Saratoga Co, is there a difference when he leaves his home at 6 a.m. to drive to his normal shift that starts at 7:00 a.m. as opposed to him receiving a phone call at 2:00 a.m. that he is needed right away, and and thus commences his trip at 2:00 a.m.  

No matter what, the taxpayers are SCREWED!

You may be right but I can remember Barbara B and Carl asking the question to Van Norden and he skirted around the issue.  These questions need to be asked in the Council meetings.  The responses will verify one way or the other.  Same thing with the city pickups.  They have no reason.  

Quoted from GrahamBonnet

It sounds like, according to DV, it is a done deal. The cops will get what they want. End of story.

According to what I posted, all options should be studied,reviewed and considered .. I never once stated or suggested that anyone should just "get what they want".

Get your facts straight.