Form 1042 S: Fill & Download for Free

Publication 515 (2012), Withholding of Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Entities (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p515/index.html) would appear to govern here. I'm not an expert on tax law but I'll do my best to answer your question.So the first question is this: are you liable to report the income? The answer is obviously yes but still, lets go through the exercise. From the documentation:In most cases, a foreign person is subject to U.S. tax on its U.S. source income. Most types of U.S. source income received by a foreign person are subject to U.S. tax of 30%.You are also required to withhold the taxes:As a withholding agent, you are personally liable for any tax required to be withheld. This liability is independent of the tax liability of the foreign person to whom the payment is made. If you fail to withhold and the foreign payee fails to satisfy its U.S. tax liability, then both you and the foreign person are liable for tax, as well as interest and any applicable penalties.Your second question:Since it's Canadian, what do I need to send?From the documentation:You are required to report payments subject to NRA withholding on Form 1042-S and to file a tax return on Form 1042. (See Returns Required , later.) An exception from reporting may apply to individuals who are not required to withhold from a payment and who do not make the payment in the course of their trade or business (I don't think that this applies).Your third question:And if I didn't send them a 1099 or any other kind of form, how will the IRS view my taking the deduction?I'm assuming that if you take this deduction and don't send the appropriate forms, they would not look on that favorably. Keep in mind that you may also be on the hook for the tax liability if the foreign IC doesn't pay the tax -- so it's in your interest to send this form ASAP and get them to pay their tax liability so that you don't have to.Last question:Since it's after January 31, would I incur a late penalty if there was a form I needed to send?I can't speak on the January 31 deadline but I would say that you need to prepare the 1042-S and 1042 as quickly as possible. Also, I would accrue for the tax liability just in case you are required to pay this down the line.I hope that this helps.

The 2012 Top Writer who has penned the most answers is Jon Mixon with 4973.His answers account for 1.83% of the entire 2012 class of Top Writers.The 70 Top Writers with more than 1000 answers are:5000 - Jon Mixon4477 - Garrick Saito3673 - Todd Gardiner3615 - Joshua Engel3571 - Fred Landis3247 - User2825 - Marc Bodnick2708 - Stephanie Vardavas2363 - Jim Gordon2271 - Erica Friedman2054 - Jack Dahlgren2047 - Cliff Gilley1985 - Nathan Ketsdever1973 - Mark Harrison1959 - Malcolm Sargeant1950 - Mircea Goia1834 - Jonathan Brill1815 - Mike Leary1753 - Ethan Hein1733 - Erik Fair1658 - John Burgess1626 - Alan Cohen1623 - Alex K. Chen1621 - Seb Paquet1618 - Bill McDonald1595 - Faisal Khan1568 - Joe Geronimo Martinez1553 - Dan Zhang1531 - David Stewart1517 - Charlie Cheever1506 - Yishan Wong1494 - Venkatesh Rao1472 - Lisa Galarneau1444 - Mark Hughes1429 - Achilleas Vortselas1424 - Will Wister1400 - Ian McCullough1367 - Bruce Feldman1360 - Nan Waldman1343 - Marcus Geduld1334 - David S. Rose1312 - Andrew Lemke1302 - John DeMarchi1300 - Adam Mordecai1300 - Brett Williams1298 - Eunji Choi1289 - Mikka Luster1277 - James Mcfeley1272 - Kavinay Kishor1266 - Barry Hampe1264 - Aman Anand1228 - Ryan Lackey1222 - Michael Wolfe1212 - Dan Holliday1208 - Gary Stein1188 - Rupert Baines1184 - Domhnall O'Huigin1179 - Viola Yee1119 - Eric Pepke1114 - Kat Tanaka Okopnik1091 - Bevan Audstone1086 - Jason McDonald1084 - Jeff Hammerbacher1067 - Lou Davis1054 - Toby Thain1045 - Rakesh Agrawal1042 - User-103335821672634627891039 - User-99189859375551434211025 - Jay Wacker1016 - User-10654929094265547347These 70 writers account for 43.4% of all answers written by the 2012 class.For the writers with the lowest number of answers, see: Stormy Shippy's answer to Which Top Writer has the lowest number of answers?(note: these numbers were generated 1 day after the program was announced)

I wrote a piece regarding this issue regarding incentives and drug dependent woman and sterilization in response to "Under What Conditions is it Ethical to Offer Incentives to Encourage Drug-using Women to use Long-acting Forms of Contraception?" by Jayne Lucke and Wayne Hall:Abstract.This paper will examine the role incentives play in enhancing patient autonomy and take the position that enhancement is dependent upon the protocols adopted by the agents offering them. To reach this position a general analysis of the relationship between incentives and autonomy will be discussed as well as how existing law protects those entering into such programs. Finally, I will outline Lucke’s position in relation to the points covered and how she considers that under certain circumstances and controls, incentives may offer enhancement.I.Today the use of incentives to motivate people to engage in healthier behaviour is becoming more wide spread[1]. Programs for weight loss, nicotine addiction, sexual health and even reproductive decision making have all been known to use incentive based initiatives to assist individuals reach a preferred outcome.[2] However, the use of offering incentives raises issues regarding capacity of consent, paternalism, coercion and the targeting of vulnerable classes of people.It can be argued that by offering incentives for medical treatment autonomy is compromised as the concept of capacity for consent is put into question. This stems from the mental capacity an individual may have at time when they are considering medical treatment and their reasons for undertaking it. If the incentive is worth disproportionately more than the behaviour required is worth then the incentives could be considered as, “a form of bribery and coercion”.[3]Such coercive practice undermines autonomy and thus real and valid informed consent cannot be obtained. Furthermore, it is important to recognise that individuals may be coerced by actors outside the medical treatment. Undue and outside influence from partners, work place or society at large through public policy and shifts in attitudes, can all play a role effecting an individual’s capacity to make informed and competent consent, thus again, reducing their autonomy as, “not only do individuals have preferences that differ across time, they often have competing preferences at one time”.[4]The issue of using incentives to enhance autonomy can also lead to a conflict between libertarianism and paternalism, libertarian in that, people are free to act as they choose without intervention from others or the state[5], but paternalistic in that those who design the intervention are “encouraging behaviours that make the actors better off, as defined by the actors themselves”[6], thus affecting autonomous decision making. Incentive based programs therefore run the risk of creating, “dangerous medical misinformation and political propaganda”[7]thus undermining individual freedom and autonomy which invalidates consent.[8]II.Although there may be cause for incentives to restrict autonomy, if an individual enters a program for the incentive but in the process winds up achieving something positive for themselves, such as nicotine withdrawal (even temporarily) then the incentive has done its job and enhanced the autonomy of the decision maker to reach a preferred goal as, offering an incentive can help the patient, “align their actions more closely with their true preferences”.[9]As such, incentives can enhance rather than hinder an individual’s autonomy.This is particularly true when assessing the role of incentives towards vulnerable classes of people. It has been observed that such classes often have difficulty gaining access to the same sorts of services and opportunities that other less vulnerable classes may take for granted,[10]for example: sexual and reproductive health care and addiction treatment. From this perspective, if incentive programs are administered in the right way, they might provide vulnerable people with a reason to engage with healthy behaviours that aren’t immediately rewarding to them. Why would someone seek contraceptive advice or S.T.D. screening if they can’t see an immediate benefit in doing so? If they were offered a positive reward then one might conclude that it might be considered a worthwhile decision. Such an approach would be more compassionate than the use of incentives as a form of control or influence over such classes of people and result in enhancing the participant’s autonomy, as their decision has provided a positive reward with a beneficial outcome towards their health.III.The use of incentives although becoming more widespread, is still a field that requires more research evidence to determine the extent of protection the law can offer. The law considers the relationship between doctor and patient to be fiduciary and as such the best interests of the patient must be observed at all times. At present, in South Australia, the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) establishes a protocol regarding medical consent to procedure[11]whereas the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) protects those who might be coerced or taken advantage of[12]. Also, the Civil Liabilities Act 1936 (SA) ensures patients are legally protected by acts of negligence by medical professionals.[13]Further still, the Australian Medical Association Code of Ethics 2004, although not part of codified law does provide strict guidelines for the doctor patient relationship regarding the best interests of the patient[14]. As such, these existing guidelines probably offer enough protection, but again, more research is needed to be done, particularly among vulnerable populations.[15]IV.Lucke deals with the specific example of drug dependent women and reproductive decision making, particularly in relation to Project Prevent[16]. She suggests incentives are productive in creating autonomy, however stipulates that their use is only benefited through a course of controls. If incentives are used, they should be in the form of regular, small non-cash payments which are, “designed to provide continual reinforcement over protracted time periods”.[17]Furthermore, she suggests that delivery of the incentives be connected to the participant’s receipt of counselling and advice regarding, “adequate independent information about their contraception options”.[18]For Lucke, incentives can enhance autonomy if the incentive is appropriate to the behaviour required and if the incentive is provided as part of a caring holistic treatment program[19]. I concur with this approach to incentives and suggest if the patient wants the end goal and not have it forced coercively upon them, autonomy can indeed be enhanced.Conclusion.The use of incentives, as mentioned above, seems to be becoming more wide spread and as such their growth should be matched by ethical guidelines as from an ethical perspective, “incentives should be used in ways that preserve the autonomy of the individual while minimising the potential for harm and enhancing the potential benefit”.[20]However without strict guidelines and further research the practice of incentives is open to abuse and may consequently erode confidence in the doctor patient relationship.[21] Ultimately I believe that incentives can enhance patient autonomy so long, as Lucke suggests, the incentive is not disproportionately more than the behaviour required and provided within a holistic environment of well-informed consent with the best interests of the patient always paramount.Bibliography.Australian Medical Association Code of Ethics (2004).Civil Liabilities Act 1936(SA).Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995(SA).Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).Diclemente, Ralph and Young, April, ‘Commentaries on Lucke & Hall: Incentivizing Drug-using Women’s Long-term Contraceptive Use: Some Answers, More Questions’ (2012), 107 Addiction.Dorr Goold, Susan, ‘The Doctor-Patient Relationship: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies’ (1999), 14 (S1) Journal of General Internal Medicine.Lucke, Jayne and Hall, Wayne, ‘Under What Conditions is it Ethical to Offer Incentives to Encourage Drug-Using Women to use Long-acting Forms of Contraception’ (2012), 107 Addiction.Marteau, Theresa, Ashcroft, Richard and Oliver, Adam, ‘Using Financial Incentives to Achieve Healthy Behaviour’ (April 25, 2009), 338 BMJ.Mills, John, On Liberty (Longman, Roberts & Green London, 1913).Paltrow, Lynn, ‘Commentaries on Lucke & Hall: is it ethical that some women need incentives to use contraception or to be sterilized?’ (2012), 107 Addiction. 1047Watson, Dr Johanna, ‘Active Engagement: Strategies to Increase service Participation by Vulnerable Families’, (Discussion Paper, NSW Department Community Services, August 2005).[1] Janye Lucke and Wayne Hall, ‘Under What Conditions is it Ethical to Offer Incentives to Encourage Drug-using Women to use Long-acting Forms of Contraception’ (2012), 107 Addiction. 1038.[2] Theresa Marteau, Richard Ashcroft and Adam Oliver, ‘Using Financial Incentives to Achieve Healthy Behaviour’ (April 25, 2009), 338 BMJ. 983.[3]Theresa Marteau, Richard Ashcroft and Adam Oliver, ‘Using Financial Incentives to Achieve Healthy Behaviour’ (April 25, 2009), 338 BMJ. 984.[4] Ibid.[5] John Mills, On Liberty (Longman, Roberts & Green London, 1913).[6]Above n 3.[7] Lynn Paltrow, ‘Commentaries on Lucke & Hall: is it ethical that some women need incentives to use contraception or to be sterilized?’ (2012), 107 Addiction. 1047[8] Janye Lucke and Wayne Hall, ‘Under What Conditions is it Ethical to Offer Incentives to Encourage Drug-using Women to use Long-acting Forms of Contraception’ (2012), 107 Addiction. 1036[9] Above n 3.[10] Dr Johanna Watson, ‘Active Engagement: Strategies to Increase service Participation by Vulnerable Families’, (Discussion Paper, NSW Department Community Services, August 2005). 19.[11] Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) pt 2 div 1 and 2.[12] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) pt 3 div 7A, pt 5 div 8.[13] Civil Liabilities Act 1936 (SA) s 41.[14] Australian Medical Association Code of Ethics (2004) s 1.1.[15] Susan Dorr Goold, ‘The Doctor-Patient Relationship: Challenges, Opportunities, and Strategies’ (1999), 14 (S1) Journal of General Internal Medicine. S27.[16] Janye Lucke and Wayne Hall, ‘Under What Conditions is it Ethical to Offer Incentives to Encourage Drug-Using Women to use Long-Acting Forms of Contraception’ (2012), 107 Addiction.[17] Ralph Diclemente and April Young, ‘Commentaries on Lucke & Hall: Incentivizing Drug-using Women’s Long-term Contraceptive Use: Some Answers, More Questions’ (2012), 107 Addiction. 1042[18] Above n 16, 1039.[19] Ibid.[20] Above n 1.[21]Above n 15.