# What's it called when you get caught cheating the PPP program? WIRE FRAUD



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

From teslarati.com:
[HEADING=2]*Tesla Model 3, $2.2M seized from man who fraudulently obtained COVID-19 relief loans*[/HEADING]
A man in the State of Maryland is being charged with wire fraud after obtaining multiple COVID-19 relief loans. The man successfully received a $1.5 million payment from the Paycheck Protection Program and subsequently had $2.2 million and a Tesla Model 3 seized by various Law Enforcement agencies.

45-year-old Rudolph Brooks, Jr. of Cheltenham, Maryland, in the Southern portion of the State, had a criminal complaint filed against him on March 29th, 2021, and was subsequently arrested on April 2nd. Law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Baltimore Field Office and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced the complaint following several attempts by Brooks, Jr. to obtain COVID-19 relief loans fraudulently.

A man in the State of Maryland is being charged with wire fraud after obtaining multiple COVID-19 relief loans. The man successfully received a $1.5 million payment from the Paycheck Protection Program and subsequently had $2.2 million and a Tesla Model 3 seized by various Law Enforcement agencies.

45-year-old Rudolph Brooks, Jr. of Cheltenham, Maryland, in the Southern portion of the State, had a criminal complaint filed against him on March 29th, 2021, and was subsequently arrested on April 2nd. Law enforcement agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Baltimore Field Office and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced the complaint following several attempts by Brooks, Jr. to obtain COVID-19 relief loans fraudulently.
[HEADING=3]It appears that Brooks obtained several checks that were aimed toward small business relief, including the Paycheck Protection Program that was introduced to help small businesses survive throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While Brooks is the owner of a small business, he "allegedly submitted fraudulent tax forms which allegedly reported $724,469 in payments via Forms 1099-MISC and $7,471,630 in total unemployment payments to employees from Cars Direct," the Department of Justice said in a press release.[/HEADING]
Brooks received a $1,556,589 loan and was deposited into the bank account that he listed on May 9, 2020. One of his purchases occurred on July 30th, where Brooks initiated a wire transfer to Tesla in the amount of $60,407 for the purchase of a 2018 Tesla Model 3. The DOJ affidavit indicates that Brooks was, in fact, the purchaser of the vehicle. The Model 3 was also registered to Brooks' name and to his address in Cheltenham.

In total, $2,296,136.86 was seized from eleven bank accounts, and the 2018 Tesla Model 3 was also recovered by the Department of Justice. The penalties entail a maximum sentence of 20 years in Federal Prison for wire fraud, followed by three years of supervised release.

While accelerating the transition to sustainable energy is undoubtedly the main interest of Tesla, buying an all-electric car through a fraudulent manner of actions is not ideal for helping the environment. Brooks also purchase 38 other used cars, the DOJ said. Some of the vehicles were a 2017 Mercedes Benz S Class, two 2017 Infinity Q50s, a 2015 Cadillac Escalade, a 2005 Bentley Continental, a 2014 GMC Yukon XL, and several older model luxury vehicles. The terms of the PPP loan do not show that the purchase of these vehicles is an appropriate use of funds. The business must use the PPP loan for payroll costs, mortgage interests, rent, and utilities.


----------



## TomTheAnt (Jan 1, 2019)

Pretty sure he’s not the first, nor will he be the last. I sure as hell hope the IRS and feds nail each and every one of them.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

I'm sorry....A model 3 Tesla? That's it? Dude deserved to be caught and punished.

The PPP program should never have been opened to drivers who 'pretended' to be employers with employees.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Yep. Every. Single. One.

I gave back my PPP money once the PUA came through. So I am especially arrogant about this. ;>


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

I suspect another member will be here shortly to defend the PPP for drivers horse shit. 5.4.3.2........


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

I actually asked that question of a poster in another thread talking about applying for the alphabet soup of free money. She said something like "I am having trouble keeping it all straight".
Is it free money? Is it grants?
What are all these Uber drivers gonna do when they have to start making $3578.96 monthly payments?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> What are all these Uber drivers gonna do when they have to start making $3578.96 monthly payments?


oh, but they are praying on 'forgiveness' will be automatically give to them. to which I add that is a taxable event.

But drivers as employees with a paycheck? A joke. And yes PPP was kinda opened up to gig workers. but sheesh.

Another gov'ment screw up of epic magnitudes.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

You mean Daisy? Dude, you're talking about one of my favorite posters in this realm. Why? She has passed on more solid background info on these programs than anyone. She is my rock of Gibraltar. Not sure why she is faint right now. She'll recover.

In the meantime I am delaying payback of my EIDL loan as long as possible. I was right with my guess about PUA tax forgiveness, and I go on record now that the EIDL loans will be at least partially forgiven.

Hear me now and believe me later.
-Arnold Schwarzenegger


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

5,4,3,2..........


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

SHalester said:


> oh, but they are praying on 'forgiveness' will be automatically give to them. to which I add that is a taxable event.
> 
> But drivers as employees with a paycheck? A joke. And yes PPP was kinda opened up to gig workers. but sheesh.
> 
> Another gov'ment screw up of epic magnitudes.


Prayer is good, and I encourage it.
But ... as a plan ... it's way down the list for me.

I would have trouble sleeping at night if I was some of the guys on here bragging about getting tens of thousands of dollars of 'loans'.

I was in line at the bank the other day. The guy in front of me was trying to make a car payment using his EDD money. The clerk told him that it would cost $20 to do that, but he could go outside to the ATM and take the cash out and come in and make the payment and it wouldn't cost any extra. He thought about it for a second and said, "Go ahead and charge the $20. It's not my money. It's my grandkids."
He was right, but ... jeeze ....


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

_Tron_ said:


> record now that the EIDL loans will be at least partially forgiven.


one was income won't be taxed. A forgiven loan is quite a different matter. It is a taxable event per the IRS. Unless your hoping there a language in the 'bill' that says IRS won't come after you for a forgiven loan.

As to who will defend drivers gettiing PPP loans; there are a slew of them. It's ok to disagree with somebody you agreed with on something else, right? Right?



UberBastid said:


> I would have trouble sleeping at night if I was some of the guys on here bragging about getting tens of thousands of dollars of 'loans'.


ding ding and from a program with PAY and Payroll in the title. Clearly the program manager fraked up. So not for what it was intended for.

And the heads exploding when they find out the IRS is going to tax that amount as that year's income. Ooooops.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

UberBastid said:


> Prayer is good, and I encourage it.
> But ... as a plan ... it's way down the list for me.
> 
> I would have trouble sleeping at night if I was some of the guys on here bragging about getting tens of thousands of dollars of 'loans'.
> ...


A guy responded to one of my posts yesterday saying he was getting a $22,000 check today for one of the loans. He'll be in for a rude awakening when he has to pay that back.


----------



## Forrestsmagical (Mar 23, 2017)

SHalester said:


> forgiven loan is quite a different matter. It is a taxable event per the IRS. Unless your hoping there a language in the 'bill' that says IRS won't come after you for a forgiven loan.


While I agree with you on improper use of government funds like buying a tesla lol, these covid grants and loans are already considered non taxable income. IRS notice N 2021-06.

Both these programs can be taken advantage of by gig workers. As long as the funds are used for proper business expense, there is nothing wrong with accessing the funds.

The PPP for a sole proprietor only pays out 2.5 months of one person's income. Exactly what it's designed to do. It can't be more than that without falsified information.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

_Tron_ said:


> You mean Daisy? Dude, you're talking about one of my favorite posters in this realm. Why? She has passed on more solid background info on these programs than anyone. She is my rock of Gibraltar. Not sure why she is faint right now. She'll recover.


Oh yea, I love Daisy too. 
I didn't give her hell or anything.
I really was just curious ... and a little concerned for her.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

Forrestsmagical said:


> these covid grants and loans are already considered non taxable income


[HEADING=2]*https://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-forgiven-ppp-loans/*[/HEADING]
[HEADING=2][/HEADING]
[HEADING=2]Which States Are Taxing Forgiven PPP Loans?[/HEADING]
[HEADING=3]*Last Updated March 25, 2021*[/HEADING]
_Ordinarily, a forgiven loan qualifies as income. However, Congress chose to exempt forgiven PPP loans from federal income taxation. Many states, however, remain on track to tax them by either treating forgiven loans as taxable income, denying the deduction for expenses paid for using forgiven loans, or both. The map and table below show states' tax treatment of forgiven PPP loans._










_Why do states have such different practices when it comes to the taxation of PPP loans? It all has to do with how states conform to the federal tax code.

State policymakers are now in the position to help ensure PPP recipients receive the full emergency benefit Congress intended by refraining from taxing these federal lifelines at the state level. Denying the deduction for expenses covered by forgiven PPP loans has a tax effect very similar to treating forgiven PPP loans as taxable income: both methods of taxation increase taxable income beyond what it would have been had the business not taken out a PPP loan in the first place.

If policymakers wish to avoid imposing taxes on these small business lifelines, however, they need to act quickly, as tax deadlines are fast approaching._


----------



## Forrestsmagical (Mar 23, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> [HEADING=2]*https://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-forgiven-ppp-loans/*[/HEADING]
> [HEADING=2][/HEADING]
> [HEADING=2]Which States Are Taxing Forgiven PPP Loans?[/HEADING]
> [HEADING=3]*Last Updated March 25, 2021*[/HEADING]
> ...


*Federal non taxable income is what we are discussing.

Those are state taxes. States have their own say if you happen to live in one that collects state taxes. Your CPA will be the best source of guidance.


----------



## Taxi2Uber (Jul 21, 2017)

Forrestsmagical said:


> States have their own say if you happen to live in one that collects state taxes.


States have their own say, whether they collect state tax or not.

_"Texas and Nevada treat forgiven PPP loans as taxable gross revenue, while Ohio and Washington do not."_


----------



## Forrestsmagical (Mar 23, 2017)

Taxi2Uber said:


> States have their own say, whether they collect state tax or not.
> 
> _"Texas and Nevada treat forgiven PPP loans as taxable gross revenue, while Ohio and Washington do not."_


If you're trying to be smart with Nevada, nobody here is paying commerce tax. That requires income over 6 million a year. Not applicable to us whatsoever.

In Nevada for a gig worker making under 6 mil a year, no fed or state tax.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

SHalester said:


> one was income won't be taxed. A forgiven loan is quite a different matter. It is a taxable event per the IRS. Unless your hoping there a language in the 'bill' that says IRS won't come after you for a forgiven loan.


I hadn't thought that far ahead! I was just thinking in terms of the loan itself being partially or wholly forgiven. Good point.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

SHalester said:


> I'm sorry....A model 3 Tesla? That's it? Dude deserved to be caught and punished.
> 
> The PPP program should never have been opened to drivers who 'pretended' to be employers with employees.


I reported my PPP claim honestly...

1 employee, and the form i filled out was for sole proprietor under "owner compensation replacement"

I lost a lot of rental income, way more than i lost from not driving in 2020. (after Disney world opened back up my taxi income wasn't really much lower to be honest)


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

_Tron_ said:


> Brooks initiated a wire transfer to Tesla in the amount of $60,407 for the purchase of a 2018 Tesla Model 3.


Tesla charged the guy 60 large for a three year old Model 3? This is clearly the real crime here.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

The Model 3's are holding their value. Resale value is very good. It's amazing. I just wonder why with all that money did the guy not buy a new S, or something.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

_Tron_ said:


> The Model 3's are holding their value. Resale value is very good. It's amazing. I just wonder why with all that money did the guy not buy a new S, or something.


Or a plane ticket to a country with no extradition treaty with the US.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Or a plane ticket to a country with no extradition treaty with the US.


Seriously.
I mean, did he think that he'd never get caught?

.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

I'm afraid the odds are in favor of _not_ getting caught. The scale of the relief programs vs the limited resources of the authorities.

I truly hope I'm wrong.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SHalester said:


> The PPP program should never have been opened to drivers who 'pretended' to be employers with employees.




















I didn't realize the PPP program opened up for drivers who pretended to be employers with employees. Can you cite your source ? Even a date perhaps this happened? I'll be waiting

While I'm sure he's busy looking for that information, just for clarification purposes, the drivers I know, including myself, who did obtain the PPP loan, stated we were independent contractors or sole Proprietors. I don't know why y'all are mad at us about these damn loans . Y'all should be angry at the federal government who authorized these loans to be opened up to us&#129335;‍♀ we didn't write the bill. Perhaps if some of you would have stopped flapping those chops and opened your ears you could have learned a thing or two. Instead you were so quick to spout off and Now as you're realizing it's perfectly legal, you're displacing your anger on us out of pure resentment. You can't say a few of us didn't try to tell you

Now back to @SHalester







UberBastid said:


> I actually asked that question of a poster in another thread talking about applying for the alphabet soup of free money. She said something like "I am having trouble keeping it all straight".
> Is it free money? Is it grants?
> What are all these Uber drivers gonna do when they have to start making $3578.96 monthly payments?


Well don't know any Uber driver that got a loan high enough to have a $3578/mo pymt. Just for reference a loan approximately at 35,000 would result in payments of $171 give or take a dollar. When I stated I was having trouble keeping track of everything, I was not referencing the terms or conditions of these loans. Nor was I referencing my grasp on my financial matters. That comment was specifically about a call I got from the SBA. I had forgot that they had called and at the time I assumed I knew which program they were calling about but as I look back on it now, it could be any of them. Not that it really matters because the information is the same regardless of what program it was for. It's more so I feel disorganized because I don't know specifically what when she was calling about. I'm a little OCD when it comes to the things and especially my finances. So I realize my disorganization is very low on someone else's scale but in terms of how to put together I normally am, it was out of the norm for me. Hence I felt disorganized


Invisible said:


> A guy responded to one of my posts yesterday saying he was getting a $22,000 check today for one of the loans. He'll be in for a rude awakening when he has to pay that back.


I really hope $110 a month isn't a "rude awakening" for someone. I mean I understand it's extra money you need a budget in every month but if a $110 is going to break you, you definitely should not have taken out the loan to begin with.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

Daisey77 said:


> View attachment 586261
> 
> 
> View attachment 586259
> ...


My reply you quoted was based on those doing fraudulent PPP or EIDL loans, as was the context. Some examples of fraud tactics are applying for multiple loans with more than one lender, not having a at least a 25% reduction in revenues, not showing a net profit in taxes. And the link I've attached shows a self-employed person can't get more than $20.833 with no employees.

Yet the example I referenced in the reply you quoted was the person was getting more than $22,000.

Good for you to have gotten the loan.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Not sure if this will add to, or cure, any confusion regarding PPP. Many of these loan programs are very liberal in their nature. I applied for, and received, a PPP loan strictly based on my rideshare "business". The SBA seems to go along with the notion that rideshare drivers are sole proprietors with one "employee". It's a judgment call which could easily have been interpreted the opposite way.

The SBA may have taken this stance because lawmakers have been more interested in flooding the economy with $$ over other considerations. Keep in mind that strictly speaking -at least in my state of California- drivers could have been denied unemployment insurance because as "independent contractors" we have never paid one dime in to the system. Again, states in this case took a broad view due to the federal legislation and paid drivers unemployment. I'm still not sure why I am getting both the $300 federal sourced funding, plus $176 basic minimum unemployment, but again, this is getting money into the economy.

Now, what was a point of contention on this board last year was if it was right for drivers to take a PPP loan/grant, as well as to draw unemployment. I mean, the "employee" is either being employed with funds from the PPP program, or, is unemployed and is eligible for unemployment funds.

The consensus was that to draw from both programs was double-dipping, and at the very least, immoral. I agreed, and when both my unemployment claim as well as my PPP application were approved, I returned the PPP funds. Quite frankly, the unemployment money has far outweighed the PPP money I received (with an honest filing), so it was a no-brainer as to which program to stick with.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

_Tron_ said:


> Not sure if this will add to, or cure, any confusion regarding PPP. Many of these loan programs are very liberal in their nature. I applied for, and received, a PPP loan strictly based on my rideshare "business". The SBA seems to go along with the notion that rideshare drivers are sole proprietors with one "employee". It's a judgment call which could easily have been interpreted the opposite way.
> 
> The SBA may have taken this stance because lawmakers have been more interested in flooding the economy with $$ over other considerations. Keep in mind that strictly speaking -at least in my state of California- drivers could have been denied unemployment insurance because as "independent contractors" we have never paid one dime in to the system. Again, states in this case took a broad view due to the federal legislation and paid drivers unemployment. I'm still not sure why I am getting both the $300 federal sourced funding, plus $176 basic minimum unemployment, but again, this is getting money into the economy.
> 
> ...


Unemployment would have paid out better for me (especially in the extra $600 time) but I still was getting hours at my day job so collecting unemployment wouldn't have worked. That's why i Opted to take the PPP loan. I collected PPP for both the taxi business and the vacation rental business. (while still collecting a paycheck).


----------



## Ted Fink (Mar 19, 2018)

_Tron_ said:


> From teslarati.com:
> [HEADING=2]*Tesla Model 3, $2.2M seized from man who fraudulently obtained COVID-19 relief loans*[/HEADING]
> A man in the State of Maryland is being charged with wire fraud after obtaining multiple COVID-19 relief loans. The man successfully received a $1.5 million payment from the Paycheck Protection Program and subsequently had $2.2 million and a Tesla Model 3 seized by various Law Enforcement agencies.
> 
> ...


This dude paid 60k for a 3 year old Tesla Model 3??? Either he's as dumb as he is criminal, or this whole thing needs some fact checking. I would think too that there would be more oversight on such a large loan. If I go into a bank looking for a million, I'm pretty sure someone is going to look at everything REALLY carefully. The government less so, of course, but idk. I just think this whole story probably needs some fact checking.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Ted Fink said:


> This dude paid 60k for a 3 year old Tesla Model 3??? Either he's as dumb as he is criminal, or this whole thing needs some fact checking. I would think too that there would be more oversight on such a large loan. If I go into a bank looking for a million, I'm pretty sure someone is going to look at everything REALLY carefully. The government less so, of course, but idk. I just think this whole story probably needs some fact checking.


and ... do you expect the news media in this country to actually DO THAT?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> Now back to @SHalester


are we triggered today? Yup, I'm on record that PPP was not intended for drivers who 'pretend' to be employees or 'owners'. What does PPP stand for?

I rest my opinion.

5,4,3,2.......... queue 'but but but it was modified JUST for drivers'. <sigh> Our tax dollars at work.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Ted Fink said:


> This dude paid 60k for a 3 year old Tesla Model 3??? Either he's as dumb as he is criminal, or this whole thing needs some fact checking. I would think too that there would be more oversight on such a large loan. If I go into a bank looking for a million, I'm pretty sure someone is going to look at everything REALLY carefully. The government less so, of course, but idk. I just think this whole story probably needs some fact checking.


Those are some good points, but also keep in mind that the sheer volume of loans, coupled with the rather permissive policies for granting the loans, means that oversight is going to be months to years behind. At best. I would bet a nickel that all told we are witness to the largest fraud in US history.

(if you don't count the "fraud" committed by the investment banks)


----------



## W00dbutcher (Jan 14, 2019)

It's called Don't drop the soap....

Also known as squeal like a pig.

But most people in jail just say "hey you got a pretty mouth"


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Invisible said:


> My reply you quoted was based on those doing fraudulent PPP or EIDL loans, as was the context. Some examples of fraud tactics are applying for multiple loans with more than one lender, not having a at least a 25% reduction in revenues, not showing a net profit in taxes. And the link I've attached shows a self-employed person can't get more than $20.833 with no employees.
> 
> Yet the example I referenced in the reply you quoted was the person was getting more than $22,000.
> 
> ...


He might have been talking about the EIDL loan. For a driver to get 22000 they would have had to apply for the second draw using gross income which just went into effect 6 weeks ago and would have had to gross over 100k. More like 106000 ish. Now if it was the EIDL loan, then yes he easily could have got 22K and a lot of drivers did. they actually just opened it up to where we could apply for an increase too



_Tron_ said:


> Keep in mind that strictly speaking -at least in my state of California- drivers could have been denied unemployment insurance because as "independent contractors" we have never paid one dime in to the system


No, not true. The Cares Act was specifically written to include independent contractors for unemployment. It's federally funded. It cost the State nothing.


_Tron_ said:


> Again, states in this case took a broad view due to the federal legislation and paid drivers unemploymen


California is a little different because I believe they used State unemployment to pay you guys since you were technically deemed employees during last year. There may be one or two other states as well but in 99% of the states, if they signed the contract with the Secretary of Labor, they had no choice but to process our claims. Again why would they not? It cost them nothing because it is federally funded. In fact all of their system upgrades were included in their payment from the federal government. So they actually benefited from it too . However, If they don't follow the federal guidelines the federal government can withhold their payments.


_Tron_ said:


> I'm still not sure why I am getting both the $300 federal sourced funding, plus $176 basic minimum unemployment, but again, this is getting money into the economy.


Because the pandemic relief act that President Biden signed says if you're getting at least $1 in unemployment payment that week they will supplement in extra 300. Just like the $600 boost last year


_Tron_ said:


> Now, what was a point of contention on this board last year was if it was but ht for drivers to take a PPP loan/grant, as well as to draw unemployment. I mean, the "employee" is either being employed with funds from the PPP program, or, is unemployed and is eligible for unemployment funds.
> 
> The consensus was that to draw from both programs was double-dipping, and at the very least, immoral. I agreed, and when both my unemployment claim as well as my PPP application were approved, I returned the PPP funds. Quite frankly, the unemployment money has far outweighed the PPP money I received (with an honest filing), so it was a no-brainer as to which program to stick with.


If the loans you took are just that, loans, it's not considered income because you have to pay it back. So unemployment can't factor that in. If it's forgiven and you don't have to pay it back then it is considered income and it will affect your unemployment.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Daisey77 said:


> No, not true. The Cares Act was specifically written to include independent contractors for unemployment. It's federally funded. It cost the State nothing.


I understand. You in fact pointed that out last year. I am just saying us rideshare types are very fortunate to have had that bestowed on us. If I didn't put it that way in my post I am now. ;>



Daisey77 said:


> Because the pandemic relief act that President Biden signed says if you're getting at least $1 in unemployment payment that week they will supplement in extra 300. Just like the $600 boost last year


Yes. Understood. When I say "I'm still not sure" I just mean I'm not sure how I or any other driver is eligible for that $1 dollar. Technically we are not, but again, fed law must have included us. Again, we are fortunate.



Daisey77 said:


> If the loans you took are just that, loans, it's not considered income because you have to pay it back. So unemployment can't factor that in. If it's forgiven and you don't have to pay it back then it is considered income and it will affect your unemployment.


Well that's just it, for the PPP loan to be forgivable you had to allocate a significant percentage to employees.

With regards to the other expenses allowable under a PPP loan they didn't seem to fit ridesharing at all. We don't have utilities and mortgage payments tied to the biz. It seemed more for brick and motor stuff. Another reason I passed.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

_Tron_ said:


> . I am just saying us rideshare types are very fortunate to have had that bestowed on us. If I didn't put it that way in my post I am now. ;>


&#128156; ⬆⬆⬆⬆

Exactly, We are so blessed they even took into consideration the self-employed and independent contractors. I can't even imagine where we would all do without it. Although I will say I doubt we'll ever get it again with all of the shenanigans that came along with it


_Tron_ said:


> With regards to the other expenses allowable under a PPP loan they didn't seem to fit ridesharing at all. We don't have utilities and mortgage payments tied to the biz. It seemed more for brick and motor stuff. Another reason I passed.


At least 60% has to go to payroll but you can use up to 100% of it, which is what we would do. You can pay yourself. You would get it forgiven under the reason, owner compensation replacement. There are a few other reasons but not many we could use. The big one is owner compensation replacement


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

_Tron_ said:


> Not sure if this will add to, or cure, any confusion regarding PPP. Many of these loan programs are very liberal in their nature. I applied for, and received, a PPP loan strictly based on my rideshare "business". The SBA seems to go along with the notion that rideshare drivers are sole proprietors with one "employee". It's a judgment call which could easily have been interpreted the opposite way.
> 
> The SBA may have taken this stance because lawmakers have been more interested in flooding the economy with $$ over other considerations. Keep in mind that strictly speaking -at least in my state of California- drivers could have been denied unemployment insurance because as "independent contractors" we have never paid one dime in to the system. Again, states in this case took a broad view due to the federal legislation and paid drivers unemployment. I'm still not sure why I am getting both the $300 federal sourced funding, plus $176 basic minimum unemployment, but again, this is getting money into the economy.
> 
> ...


Great points! I was wondering how unemployment works w/ the PPP and/or the loans. Admirable of you to return the PPP. I wish I would've stayed on unemployment longer to find the right fit instead of taking my position. It is the most dysfunctional and hostile environment I've ever worked in. .



Daisey77 said:


> He might have been talking about the EIDL loan. For a driver to get 22000 they would have had to apply for the second draw using gross income which just went into effect 6 weeks ago and would have had to gross over 100k. More like 106000 ish. Now if it was the EIDL loan, then yes he easily could have got 22K and a lot of drivers did. they actually just opened it up to where we could apply for an increase too
> 
> No, not true. The Cares Act was specifically written to include independent contractors for unemployment. It's federally funded. It cost the State nothing.
> 
> ...


Thanks for elaborating.


----------



## Seamus (Jun 21, 2018)

A lot of people keep confusing the PPP and EIDL loans and use them interchangably.

I can tell you I worked on my Companies PPP application twice, 1 and 2. A PPP loan of 2.2 Million Dollars is nothing like some basic information and just a couple of forms to fill out as an Uber driver would do. A loan of this size involves several official documents and tax information to be submitted. To get a loan of that size would have involved many forged documents and a large amount of fraudulent filings. He was greedy, if he only submitted a small amount of fraud it would have taken many more years to get caught. With the loan and the foregiveness application there is a big difference whether you are below or above $150,000.


----------



## Phoenix123 (Sep 2, 2016)

PPP is for Small Business Owners which include Rideshare
EIDL LOANS is for Small Business Owners which include Rideshare

Everyone has there own thoughts and opinions when it comes to PUA and PPP

Everyone should go with what they feel is right.

EDD / Unemployment does not talk about PPP or Loans upon certification and they have had over a full year to address this issue. ( They have not yet ... WHY )

My guess PPP is a loan..... ( until it is forgiven ) .. but then what is it after that... Income or a LOAN that was forgiven ???
( Everyone should make their own opinion about this as well )

EIDL is also a loan & @ this moment, no forgiveness possible at this time.

We are in weird times and many people took advantage of the loans that the gov provided.

As long as you were truthful you are fine... Doing what this guy did was crazy.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

_Tron_ said:


> you had to allocate a significant percentage to employees.


ding ding ding ding ding


----------



## Phoenix123 (Sep 2, 2016)

_Tron_ said:


> Well that's just it, for the PPP loan to be forgivable you had to allocate a significant percentage to employees.
> 
> With regards to the other expenses allowable under a PPP loan they didn't seem to fit ridesharing at all. We don't have utilities and mortgage payments tied to the biz. It seemed more for brick and motor stuff. Another reason I passed.


https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/f...SBA Form 3508 PPP Forgiveness Application.pdf
You should really check out the forgiveness application

Borrowers are eligible for loan forgiveness for the following costs:
1. Eligible payroll costs. Borrowers are generally eligible for forgiveness for the payroll costs paid and payroll costs incurred during the eight-week (56-day) Covered Period (or Alternative Payroll Covered Period) ("payroll costs"). Payroll costs are considered paid on the day that paychecks are distributed or the Borrower originates an ACH credit transaction. Payroll costs are considered incurred on the day that the employee's pay is earned. Payroll costs incurred but not paid during the Borrower's last pay period of the Covered Period (or Alternative Payroll Covered Period) are eligible for forgiveness if paid on or before the next regular payroll date. Otherwise, payroll costs must be paid during the Covered Period (or Alternative Payroll Covered Period). For each individual employee, the total amount of cash compensation eligible for forgiveness may not exceed an annual salary of $100,000, as prorated for the covered period. Count payroll costs that were both paid and incurred only once. For information on what qualifies as payroll costs, see Interim Final Rule on Paycheck Protection Program posted on April 2, 2020 (85 FR 20811).

2. Eligible nonpayroll costs. Nonpayroll costs eligible for forgiveness consist of:
(a) covered mortgage obligations: payments of interest (not including any prepayment or payment of principal) on any business mortgage obligation on real or personal property incurred before February 15, 2020 ("business mortgage interest payments");
(b) covered rent obligations: business rent or lease payments pursuant to lease agreements for real or personal property in force before February 15, 2020 ("business rent or lease payments"); and
(c) covered utility payments: business payments for a service for the distribution of electricity,* gas,* water, transportation, *telephone*, or internet access for which service began before February 15, 2020 ("business utility payments").

An eligible nonpayroll cost must be paid during the Covered Period or incurred during the Covered Period and paid on or before the next regular billing date, even if the billing date is after the Covered Period. Eligible nonpayroll costs cannot exceed 25% of the total forgiveness amount. Count nonpayroll costs that were both paid and incurred only once.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/f... Instructions -- 3508EZ (1.19.2021)-508_0.pdf
*Owner Compensation: *Any amounts paid to owners (owner-employees (with an ownership stake of 5% or more), a selfemployed individual, or general partners). For each individual owner in total across all businesses, this amount is capped at (a) $20,833 (the 2.5-month equivalent of $100,000 per year), or (b) the 2.5-month equivalent of the individual's applicable compensation in the year that was used to calculate the loan amount (2019 or 2020), whichever is lower.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Ding Ding Ding Ding


----------



## Forrestsmagical (Mar 23, 2017)

As @Phoenix123 posted

Gig workers use 100% owner compensation for full forgiveness. Its the easiest form of forgiveness. The info is verified by your schedule C. That's it.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

Phoenix123 said:


> *Owner Compensation: *Any amounts paid to owners (owner-employees (with an ownership stake of 5% or more), a selfemployed individual, or general partners). For each individual owner in total across all businesses, this amount is capped at (a) $20,833 (the 2.5-month equivalent of $100,000 per year), or (b) the 2.5-month equivalent of the individual's applicable compensation in the year that was used to calculate the loan amount (2019 or 2020), whichever is lower.












And what have I been saying a long?! Thank you @Phoenix123 !! It's amazing because I don't think I've ever led anyone on this forum astray . Yet they still doubt me.&#129335;‍♀ I don't know if it's because I'm a female or it's their ego but I'm about done giving advice. I don't speak on things of such importance or about anything really, without double triple quadruple checking my facts. I'm sure some will still argue but hopefully you stating this will shut some of them up


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Bank


UberBastid said:


> I actually asked that question of a poster in another thread talking about applying for the alphabet soup of free money. She said something like "I am having trouble keeping it all straight".
> Is it free money? Is it grants?
> What are all these Uber drivers gonna do when they have to start making $3578.96 monthly payments?


Bankruptcy !


----------



## Phoenix123 (Sep 2, 2016)

Daisey77 said:


> View attachment 587155
> 
> 
> And what have I been saying a long?! Thank you @Phoenix123 !! It's amazing because I don't think I've ever led anyone on this forum astray . Yet they still doubt me.&#129335;‍♀ I don't know if it's because I'm a female or it's their ego but I'm about done giving advice. I don't speak on things of such importance or about anything really, without double triple quadruple checking my facts. I'm sure some will still argue but hopefully you stating this will shut some of them up


I don't know what it is, but some people are not used to a good thing because their whole life has been that way.

I try to point to facts...

I have to post links & if you can get it from the SBA who is doing these loans even better vs some off brand website.

Also if its not in Black and White, Like I say all the time its just ones opinion. We all have them and that is fine. That's why I am a firm believer people need to make their own decision when it comes to these things.

https://www.uberpeople.net/threads/p-p-p.432093/
People have listen to me thought.... If you have not seen my tread, check it out....


----------



## GIGorJOB (Feb 29, 2020)

This has probably been gone over plenty but you don't need employees or to be an employee of your business, to take advantage of the PPP, nor do you need to maintain a formal payroll. The issue with the PPP and UI simultaneously IMO really is decided by the individual's State, as in, where they live.

Assume I'm wrong though because of the very nature and subject of this topic, (although that is an extreme example) and obviously this is all still a bit unknown, but I do not recall any restrictions on the PPP, it's agreement or literature, that suggested it is an issue for the PPP/SBA and the issuing bank. I don't know why it would be? IMO, the issue would or would not come from your state's unemployment.

The restrictions on the PPP were how they were utilized in conjunction with an EIDL loan and also an EIDL advance. They do not want these used for the same exact purposes, although I do not know about the new targeted advance or any new rules that might have changed or "now" contradict this.

This is how one professional explained it to me a couple months and I hope they are right. For example, when applying for the PPP 2nd draw, they do not account for, nor ask about any unemployment previously taken. Unemployment is typically reported as additional income on a schedule 1 and can otherwise be viewed as "personal" income, not business income. Many are IC's as SP's filing a Schedule C, which is still viewed as a business and generates business income (or loss). If the "business" suffered the required loss, uncertainty, etc, to be eligible for PPP, the business/you are still eligible.

However, IMO it does seem largely inappropriate and worse to double dip, as in take them both for the same pay periods, at the same time, not something I would do but say you exhausted your PPP and were still eligible for UI afterwards, "could" be fair game. Keep the separate accounts, don't co-mingle and even if unnecessary, might want to consider cutting the checks to yourself weekly from the PPP funds even if you don't maintain a formal payroll, as I don't see why that would hurt and is an extra precaution but that's just me. As suggested, everyone's timing and circumstances is quit different so default to your professionals and do what fits you and your situation best in all of this.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Phoenix123 said:


> You should really check out the forgiveness application


Thank you Phoenix, and thanks for the links. After a cursory look at the links the main thing I was not aware of was that Biden had updated the program rules. I have not been paying attention to anything PPP as I assumed having taken the UI route that door was closed.

So, if I may iterate this with you to understand your point of view, you seem to be suggesting the following:

1) Even for rideshare drivers drawing UI, there are still legal opportunities to pursue a PPP loan.

2) There are expenses allowed with a PPP loan that are deemed forgivable for rideshare drivers. Perhaps car payments?

Further, forgive me if you mentioned this in one of the linked threads, as I have not read every comment as yet, but did you yourself take both a PPP loan as well as draw UI?

And, have you applied for, AND RECEIVED, PPP loan forgiveness?



Daisey77 said:


> And what have I been saying a long?! Thank you @Phoenix123 !! It's amazing because I don't think I've ever led anyone on this forum astray . Yet they still doubt me.&#129335;‍♀ I don't know if it's because I'm a female or it's their ego but I'm about done giving advice. I don't speak on things of such importance or about anything really, without double triple quadruple checking my facts. I'm sure some will still argue but hopefully you stating this will shut some of them up


Not sure who you are talking to, but I hope you understand that your input on this forum is highly valued. It certainly is by me, and as I was just mentioning to Uber Bastid the other day in one of these threads, I consider you a TOP CONTRIBUTOR on this topic. So please, continue to share your wisdom!


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

Invisible said:


> .


Oh my god. That's funny.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

_Tron_ said:


> Oh my god. That's funny.
> 
> View attachment 587267


It was funnier before you changed your pic. &#128512;


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

I'm running for office now so please take me seriously. Oh hell, just take me.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

_Tron_ said:


> I'm running for office now so please take me seriously. Oh hell, just take me.


You going for Moderator?


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

_Tron_ said:


> I'm running for office now so please take me seriously. Oh hell, just take me.


I just changed back to myself since I'm just not special enough to be a special agent. You are the da man. &#128512;


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> are we triggered today? Yup, I'm on record that PPP was not intended for drivers who 'pretend' to be employees or 'owners'. What does PPP stand for?
> 
> I rest my opinion.


@SHalester I'm not meaning this as an attack or challenge but serious (for once) question.

What would you have done differently if you were in charge?

In my simpleton Cowboys fan brain, I look at it like this:

*Pre-COVID I was fine driving part-time making ok money Shuffling and Longhauling. Never been on a government program before.

*COVID hits and governments (loca, state and federal) all locked everything down.

*I'm now unable to work doing my usual routine because of said government mandates. I'm hit financially through no fault of my own.

*Government steps in and makes the alphabet soup of programs/agencies(SBA, PPP, EIDL, UI/PUA etc.) available.

*I utilize the programs within the parameters of the various programs. No fraud, no Teslas just keeping myself afloat.

In my simplistic view, the government said "stay home, don't work, we'll make you whole (with money your grandkids are gonna pay for but that's a whole other discussion) until things are bank to normal" so I really don't have a problem with people *LEGITIMATELY* taking advantage of what's available. Of course fraud is wrong and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

So @SHalester what would you do differently to make sure people were impacted as little as possible financially by government decisions that were beyond their control?

Again serious question, not trying to play gotcha here or be antagonistic.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

New2This said:


> You going for Moderator?


I'm going for master of moderators. I'll need god powers, super powers, and a few Bewitched powers to accomplish this mission.


----------



## Invisible (Jun 15, 2018)

_Tron_ said:


> I'm going for master of moderators. I'll need god powers, super powers, and a few Bewitched powers to accomplish this mission.


It sounds like you'll also need to be somewhat invisible for that.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

New2This said:


> What would you have done differently if you were in charge?


with which program, PPP? Let's focus on that one since it causes the most triggering.

It was designed as funds to companies to help fund payrolls. Payroll of people getting a paycheck; to keep them getting a paycheck.

Then it morphed into something else. Suddenly 'drivers' felt they too could join in the cheese(fest). A bunch here twisted themselves in knots saying they 'paid' themselves. Then the program to change. And the flood really began. Hey, I'm a business paying myself; I deserve extra cheese.

Wonder who many businesses that really were impacted (RS never stopped, was never stopped) and got no funding because the well went dry a few times?

Yes, yes, some argument RS income was 'reduced' or impacted. A stretch for sure.

Blame: the government; drivers saw a loophole and jumped.

Our tax dollars at work. Oh, those who pay Federal taxes I should say for accuracy. Tone. And balance.

All this and a bunch still are under the impression the alphabet of Fed cheese will continue; it won't. It will cease and soon. No more extensions, no more funding.

Late summer it's coming.....The End. Just my opinion and as a tax payer I get to vent, right? :biggrin:



_Tron_ said:


> I'll need god powers, super powers,


a few already have that here. :barefoot:


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> Wonder who many businesses that really were impacted (RS never stopped, was never stopped) and got no funding because the well went dry a few times?
> 
> Yes, yes, some argument RS income was 'reduced' or impacted. A stretch for sure.
> 
> Blame: the government; drivers saw a loophole and jumped.


My Uber income was definitely impacted. Not a stretch. Fact.

I did some afternoon rush hour trips, airports, bar closings and big events (concerts/ football games etc.) as my regular M.O. All of those were decimated by lockdowns:

*Rush hour- WFH killed that

"Airports- flights were empty as hell. My mom flew from here to Phoenix in July last year. She said there were 12 people on her flight. My flights to/from Cancun in November had 1/5 capacity maybe. Had whole row (both sides of row) to myself.

*Bar close- no bars for months

*Big events- still not happening here to this day.

So you've defined the problems. Great. I don't necessarily disagree with you. I'm trying for a better solution.

I'll ask again: what would you have done differently to get money into drivers pockets that were affected?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

New2This said:


> I'll ask again: what would you have done differently to get money into drivers pockets that were affected?


for tone, balance and accuracy I did answer your question. I merely limited it since it was very detailed.

PPP should not have been for anything less then a company/owner that employed warm bodies. OK, that's pretty clear. Now the peanut gallery will erupt that it really was for IC and there was verbiage for it and then the program changed. Yeah, yeah; I still disagree. That's ok, right peanut gallery?

Wasn't PUA for drivers to get UI, even tho most of them had NO W2 income to qualify? PUA wasn't enough I hear from the peanut gallery. Too bad. Even on UI from a real job one does NOT get anything near 100% of what they were making. Right?

AND the totally free $1000 grant from SBA, wasn't that enough? I mean, 5 minutes of work a grand no strings.

so my answer, is PUA was created JUST for the non W2 IC worker; and that got you $600 a week for a while; now $300 plus the weekly PUA.

Yeah, takes a ping to get evil shuffle income. I get it. :roflmao:


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

The proceeds of a PPP loan if used for certain approved purposes (mainly payroll) will be forgiven. Normally the forgiven amount of a loan is taxed, but the CARES act provides an exception. Forgiven PPP loans wont be subject to Federal income tax. State income tax is another matter, Some states may tax the amount forgiven. I live in Florida, we dont have a state income tax

Self employed people (like us) may apply and may receive PPP loans and those loans may be forgiven The forgiveness application is quite simple (if you got less than $150000) My lender asked three questions !) how much did you get 2) how much did you use for payroll 3). how much should be forgiven. No documentation was required

heres the application
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/f...and Instructions -- 3508S (1.19.2021)-508.pdf
For those that think we uber drivers are committing fraud in applying for the loan and applying for forgiveness, because we have held ourselves out as employers with employees issued W-2s.....You guys are just wrong, Self employed individuals were invited to apply for the loan and to apply for forgiveness. , And "Owner Compensation" is included in the definition of payroll

...


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

Daisey77 said:


> If the loans you took are just that, loans, it's not considered income because you have to pay it back. So unemployment can't factor that in. If it's forgiven and you don't have to pay it back then it is considered income and it will affect your unemployment.


Exactly.... Until the PPP loan is forgiven its a loan; not income.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SHalester said:


> It was designed as funds to companies to help fund payrolls. Payroll of people getting a paycheck; to keep them getting a paycheck.
> 
> Then it morphed into something else. Suddenly 'drivers' felt they too could join in the cheese(fest).


Actually no, the current PPP program is designed to help business owners as well as the self-employed an independent contractors. That's the way they wrote it. If they didn't intend for us to get it or they didn't want us to get it, why would they actually expand it to include us? As for us feeling we could just join in on the free cheese...&#128517; because we have that kind of power? We can simply overrun government programs and force these lenders to give us money? Riiiiiiight &#129315;



SHalester said:


> PPP should not have been for anything less then a company/owner that employed warm bodies.


Shoulda Woulda Coulda. You need to take it up with the government. Not on your fellow drivers. You seriously have issues if you are upset that a certain working class is utilizing benefits that we're intentionally expanded to include them.

Just for tone, balance, and accuracy , don't forget you are in fact one of the people collecting "free cheese" and doing so because you CHOOSE to not work . . . *sigh* our tax money.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

Daisey77 said:


> Actually no, the current PPP program is designed to help business owners as well as the self-employed an independent contractors. That's the way they wrote it. If they didn't intend for us to get it or they didn't want us to get it, why would they actually expand it to include us? As for us feeling we could just join in on the free cheese...&#128517; because we have that kind of power? We can simply overrun government programs and force these lenders to give us money? Riiiiiiight &#129315;
> 
> Shoulda Woulda Coulda. You need to take it up with the government. Not on your fellow drivers. You seriously have issues if you are upset that a certain working class is utilizing benefits that we're intentionally expanded to include them.
> 
> Just for tone, balance, and accuracy , don't forget you are in fact one of the people collecting "free cheese" and doing so because you CHOOSE to not work . . . *sigh* our tax money.


Im with you regarding PPP. 
PPP, EIDL and PUA were all designed to keep the money flowing to working people. and self employed people like us qualify.. The only thing you have said that I take issue with is when you say some drivers, "choose" to stay home, as if that was a bad thing. The drivers that are staying home dont see the "choice': between working and risking their health or not working and protecting their health


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

oldfart said:


> Exactly.... Until the PPP loan is forgiven its a loan; not income.


Everything you are saying makes sense, is informative, and I agree with. Clearly we drivers are eligible for PPP loans.

I am still looking for an answer though as to the possibility of taking PPP along with PUA. If I am being thick I apologize, but I'm not seeing a way to do this within the rules (nor do you seem to be saying such, but others appear to be). The best logic I can see applying your argument is that the entire time you hold the PPP _loan_ it is not income, so when you go to certify for UI/PUA on a particular week during the loan term you can legally claim you had no income. Is that how you view it?

Of course the next bend in the road is the day your PPP loan is forgiven, by declaring it was used for payroll. Does that not then instantly make your UI/PUA certifications invalid and subject to prosecution for fraud?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Daisey77 said:


> You need to take it up with the government.


You miss points, often. I laid the blame on their doorstep. Thanks for confirming my point.

As to the rest: my opinion is not going to change. Any funds went to a driver didn't go to a business with employees. Fact.

And yes, I get the Fed cheese via UI; a different story, yes? It is for individuals. AND no, mine is not PUA. And, really, the Fed cheese reduced how much Fed tax we already pay. Net net we still paid Fed taxes; can you say the same, Missy?

Choose not to work? Take the years you have been doing a non-career and start doubling it. At some point you might get to a 30+ year career in a real job. I retired and this is just a side gig (as noted so many times here). And still, I pay quantum more tax than you do now or ever did. Noodle that for a while.

Next.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

Interesting that during this discussion I just got the $9,000 EIDL advance email this morning.

I have 30 days to complete the application. I'm moving the end of April. My new address is in an SBA EIDL low-income area. &#129395;

May 1st I will apply for it using new address. $9K for following the letter of the law.

Cue @SHalester shocked reaction. &#129335;‍♂


----------



## GIGorJOB (Feb 29, 2020)

Think the argument against the PPP for the non payroll IC/SP is from a place of principal rather than one from any type of information or guidelines. A lot of these programs were mismanaged IMO but won't get into that nor fault anyone for taking what they otherwise normally and legally qualify for.

I think the point of contention is if someone truly hard a hardship or reduction in business to no fault of their own, be it Covid related economy or gov't mandate. Or instead, because of the gig nature of delivery and ride-share, did people simply chose not to work and/or accept less offers?

Kind of leads back to a similar unemployment issue. In some cases and states, I think it was offered just because working was impractical, at least in the early stages of the pandemic, not that it wasn't possible to still go earn with the apps, or otherwise.

Personally, I declined UI because it was not well defined enough in my state and as a matter of principal, I could have worked and earned plenty and typically more than usual. No gov't shutdown of delivery, nothing otherwise prevented it, so I don't need that headache but it was impractical, no one knew what we were dealing with, had an extremely high mortality and hospitalization rate at the time. No therapeutics, vaccines, or treatments.

Perhaps other state's were different and I only deliver, don't ride-share which I think may have been treated a little differently and was maybe halted in some places, not totally sure.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

SHalester said:


> You miss points, often. I laid the blame on their doorstep. Thanks for confirming my point.
> 
> As to the rest: my opinion is not going to change. Any funds went to a driver didn't go to a business with employees. Fact.
> 
> ...


You are confusing fact with opinion and then for good measure adding in a little bit of judgement
You say "Any funds went to a driver didn't go to a business with employees". "Fact" That may be a fact, and another fact is that the money self employed people take out of their businesses is called "Owners Compensation". and PPP loans are designed to cover 2.5 months of Owners Compensation, 
We should be able to agree on the facts

Your opinion seems be "that's, not right" and you would feel like you were cheating the system if you took PPP.
and I think we can agree that opinions are like assholes; everyone has one...

My problem here is the judgement... I applied for PPP, PUA and EIDL and I was approved for all of them and I took all of them and now Im applying for PPP forgiveness. and I expect that too... Unlike _Tron_ Im not returning any of it. And I get the feeling you think thats wrong.......not for you to decide


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

oldfart said:


> I applied for PPP, PUA and EIDL and I was approved for all of the


yes, I'm aware of what you applied for way upstream from here. Most likely replied back then. And hey, if you applied with honest info and the gov approve you; yay for you, right?

My opinion PPP was not born for drivers, who aren't employees or business owners in the sense how those words are used 99.99% of the time.

Pretty sure I'm not on an island with that, but if I am, so be it.

I just hope y'all get a W2 job so you can assist with paying these programs off. :roflmao:


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

_Tron_ said:


> Everything you are saying makes sense, is informative, and I agree with. Clearly we drivers are eligible for PPP loans.
> 
> I am still looking for an answer though as to the possibility of taking PPP along with PUA. If I am being thick I apologize, but I'm not seeing a way to do this within the rules (nor do you seem to be saying such, but others appear to be). The best logic I can see applying your argument is that the entire time you hold the PPP _loan_ it is not income, so when you go to certify for UI/PUA on a particular week during the loan term you can legally claim you had no income. Is that how you view it?
> 
> Of course the next bend in the road is the day your PPP loan is forgiven, by declaring it was used for payroll. Does that not then instantly make your UI/PUA certifications invalid and subject to prosecution for fraud?


Receiving both PPP and PUA is possible, I did it. The question of course is as you say...am I justified in keeping both of them

I applied for both programs as well as EIDL before I had been approved for any of them. And was surprised to get all three. All the information I provided in the applications was true and I have the documentation to back it up. so no fraud is involved. But I always said that if I cant take unemployment and PPP at the same time (which is still my understanding) I would use the PPP for something else, and pay it back...Not in a lump sum like you did but over time with interest

And Yes, untill my PPP loan is forgiven Its a loan and I havent reported it on my weekly unemployment claims.as income. I went back to work in early Oct. so Ive stopped claiming unemployment.

Assuming the PPP loan is forgiven, Ill have a decision to make. 1) Should I withdraw my PPP forgiveness application and pay back the loan. or 2) should I accept the forgiveness, say nothing, and assume the left hand (PUA) doesn' know what the right hand (PPP) is doing.

Although its something of a stretch, I do have a logical justification for #2 When claiming unemployment weeks I have to report any work and money earned. . I dont believe that the PPP loan can be called earnings, I certainly didnt work for it. Its income but not earned income..so as I see it it dosent have to be reported.


----------



## _Tron_ (Feb 9, 2020)

oldfart said:


> Receiving both PPP and PUA is possible, I did it. The question of course is as you say...am I justified in keeping both of them
> ...


OK. I understand. I have a slightly different take on the situation but will keep that to myself. It is brave of you to fully explain your situation. These government programs are, well, _government_ programs, that by their [poor] design invite people to push the envelope. I have little doubt that thousands if not million millions are drawing down on all programs, and for many of _them_, not sticking too close to the truth regarding their circumstances.


----------



## GIGorJOB (Feb 29, 2020)

Wasn't going to get into the specifics and I don't have an opinion one way or another, it's just to add context but I don't know if there is that much of a difference between the owner of a business with traditional payroll and your non payroll IC/SP etc, when it comes to the PPP. There are really too many variables and will depend on the individual circumstances.

I don't have stats but would imagine there are a large number of cases where the payroll owner who has employees, also pays themselves the same exact way and, if not mistaken, is also eligible to pay themselves under the PPP. Both groups look like they have the same owner compensation limit under the program but I'm not an expert, just attempting to make a point. IMO the program, as a whole, is more geared towards keeping one's employees paid and employed rather than the owner themselves, not that you can't though.

Would add that the non payroll group have largely relied on their net earnings to qualify and serve as the basis for their PPP loan amount. Typically this group will try to maximize their deductions so that number is not as high and will yield the best tax results, less self emp taxes, etc. This is also usually little in comparison to the gross amount especially when you factor for the mileage deduction gig drivers typically take.

There has been some recent changes and in certain situations, where this group is now permitted to use the gross amount instead. Again, not an expert but it appears that is for those who didn't take out the PPP at first round and maybe can be viewed as simply making up for skipping or missing it originally?

As far as payroll owners, they would otherwise usually pay themselves the higher end of fair market for their position to similarly avoid the "business" paying excess self emp and corp taxes, etc, if applicable. These examples are not set in stone though, you may have the non payroll group not maximizing all deductions for various reasons and also the payroll group leaving the business to absorb more of the profits and tax liabilities and not paying themselves as much, or at all, in other cases. That's why it depends.

Will add that there may have been those in the non payroll group who can't use the gross figure and had a net loss on the year, say for 2019, and therefore would not qualify for any, or meaningful, PPP at all, I assume. Where a payroll owner could still have paid themselves and/or their employees, and instead, the "business" lost the money and they still might have been approved because they still had payroll costs. When you look at the original EIDL advance, the non payroll SP/IC group would not have been eligible for more than $1k likely. Not sure how they treated partners.

The payroll group would have had $1k for every eligible employee and while we thought that was getting deducted from any PPP forgiveness, and had to be repaid, that no longer looks like it's the case. Then there is the accounting and the forgiveness aspects, where it should be easier for the non payroll group to manage. Again, I don't know all of this for sure, these are largely just examples on how the program compares.

Now that brings us back to the earlier point of if delivery and ride-share drivers really needed to take a PPP for let's say "natural causes" or was it just reluctance to work? That's a discussion all on it's own and will vary but for others who are not gig drivers or workers, who are also non payroll SP/IC, or otherwise, and may also for example, own and operate a brick and mortar but with no employees, I don't see a major difference in this group or the payroll group, if equally struggling and needing help to make ends meet.

For most of them, who were ordered to shut down or deemed non essential, when they were permitted to reopen, they were no longer eligible for unemployment in most cases, if at all. If you don't want to get tied up with the EIDL loan and take out more debt, the PPP is the only other mainstream, viable, potentially free money, option. There are private, bank, and state alternatives but typically not as good IMO.

On the other end, if an essential business owner or one who could work remotely however, you likely never closed and could not take advantage of UI. Which could be another issue. Although some essential businesses saw record profits so, it depends. Didn't mean to exclude the more recent "targeted" EIDL grant which is now another option but know even less about that and not everyone is eligible for this.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

SHalester said:


> yes, I'm aware of what you applied for way upstream from here. Most likely replied back then. And hey, if you applied with honest info and the gov approve you; yay for you, right?
> 
> My opinion PPP was not born for drivers, who aren't employees or business owners in the sense how those words are used 99.99% of the time.
> 
> ...


whether or not PPP was designed for drivers is a matter fact, not opinion. And the fact is, it was.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> yes, I'm aware of what you applied for way upstream from here. Most likely replied back then. And hey, if you applied with honest info and the gov approve you; yay for you, right?
> 
> My opinion PPP was not born for drivers, who aren't employees or business owners in the sense how those words are used 99.99% of the time.
> 
> ...


According to the IRS etc. we are Independent Contractors so it's all good.

Curious would you have problems with another IC, say one-person electrician getting PPP?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

New2This said:


> Curious would you have problems with another IC, say one-person electrician getting PPP?


believe I have stated DRIVERS many times. Specifically I've said owners with REAL employees is what should have been 100% of a program with PAYROLL in the title.

But, this is the gov'ment we are talking about, right?

And as a taxpayer I can have opinions about various programs, right? This is Merica, right? <sigh>

Sure you wanted to use an electrician as an example? Think they'd have a tough time proving a reduction in revenue; that stuff continued and never stopped.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> Sure you wanted to use an electrician as an example? Think they'd have a tough time proving a reduction in revenue; that stuff continued and never stopped.


Now you're being contrarian just to be contrarian like @Demon. Sorry cheap shot?

Ok carpenter or someone like that. A lot of trades (electricians, HVAC, plumbers etc.) had difficulties because people didn't want strangers in their homes.

I think you're biased against drivers because you hang (virtually) with them. &#129335;‍♂


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

New2This said:


> Sorry cheap shot?


nah, a cheap shot would be mentioning evil shuffles. THAT would be a low blow. But an accurate one, right?

Carpenter: are you digging a deeper hole? Constructions briefly paused, then restarted. to make this easier on you if that carpenter had a crew he paid: YES, no problem. Anything related to housing kept going, right?

So I must agree with every opinion here, no question. You aren't really suggesting that, right? I mean, that's silly.

Oh, where is Dekero when he's needed.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> nah, a cheap shot would be mentioning evil shuffles. THAT would be a low blow. But an accurate one, right?
> 
> Carpenter: are you digging a deeper hole? Constructions briefly paused, then restarted. to make this easier on you if that carpenter had a crew he paid: YES, no problem. Anything related to housing kept going, right?
> 
> ...


&#129318;‍♂

Let me try again.

Pick the construction trade, doesn't matter which one, electrician, handyman, HVAC. Goes to people's homes. Sole proprietor, no employees, one-man outfit.

Has a severe downturn in business because March of 2020 people didn't want strangers in their homes. Lost a lot of money.

Is he entitled to PPP money?


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

New2This said:


> According to the IRS etc. we are Independent Contractors so it's all good.
> 
> Curious would you have problems with another IC, say one-person electrician getting PPP?


the self employed electrician wouldn't have a problem


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

SHalester said:


> You miss points, often. I laid the blame on their doorstep. Thanks for confirming my point.
> 
> As to the rest: my opinion is not going to change. Any funds went to a driver didn't go to a business with employees. Fact.
> 
> ...


You're right, State UI is for individuals... individuals who are EMPLOYEES. You got State UI because you guys were deemed employees last year. I know how much you loved being called in employee&#128517; somehow you failed to recognize you were an employee . . . yet somehow you're getting State UI because you were in fact an employee? I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but if you were in fact never an employee like deep state you are not, doesn't that mean you were collecting unemployment in a fraudulent manner for what it was not intended for? *Gasp* yes you are in fact one of us&#129335;‍♀

Of course I pay federal taxes. You surely don't think PUA isn't federally taxed, do you? In fact I overpaid. Hence I got a refund&#128513;

Im already at the 20+ year career milestone. If I was to go back, I'd have another 20 years still. That would be 40 on your 30 You were clearly late getting into the career field. 


GIGorJOB said:


> Think the argument against the PPP for the non payroll IC/SP is from a place of principal rather than one from any type of information or guidelines. A lot of these programs were mismanaged IMO but won't get into that nor fault anyone for taking what they otherwise normally and legally qualify for.
> 
> I think the point of contention is if someone truly hard a hardship or reduction in business to no fault of their own, be it Covid related economy or gov't mandate. Or instead, because of the gig nature of delivery and ride-share, did people simply chose not to work and/or accept less offers?
> 
> ...


PUA was created and funded on the federal level. The states had to decide whether or not they wanted to implement the federal program. If they did, they had to sign a contract with the Secretary of Labor. It cost the states nothing. So it wasn't a decision to offer it or not. It was a decision whether they wanted to implement the federal bill. As far as you not wanting to take it because the state did not Define it well enough. I don't follow. I know our state delayed implementing it waiting for federal guidelines and they were very clearly spelled out. It wasn't up to the states to Define. They couldn't change or alter things. They didn't have that power


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

SHalester said:


> nah, a cheap shot would be mentioning evil shuffles. THAT would be a low blow. But an accurate one, right?
> 
> Carpenter: are you digging a deeper hole? Constructions briefly paused, then restarted. to make this easier on you if that carpenter had a crew he paid: YES, no problem. Anything related to housing kept going, right?
> 
> ...


why wouldn't a carpenter with an employed crew that cut back or shut down during COVID be able to justify their application for PPP but a self employed carpenter that chose not to work due to COVID not be able to justify an application for PPP?


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

I want to know why the only program he approves of is the one he's on. It was not designed for self-employed independent contractors either but unemployment is okay? While the other programs also made exceptions to accommodate the self-employed and independent contractors but those programs are not okay? I'm confused... Really confused.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

oldfart said:


> why wouldn't a carpenter with an employed crew that cut back or shut down during COVID be able to justify their application for PPP b


they could try, certainly. And in some states perhaps they were not allowed to go back to 'work'. My state.county that wasn't the case. contruction resumed very quickly with safeguards of course.

Bottom line, for me, PPP was for an employer with employees that rec'd pay stubs. k? And since I pay my taxes and this is America, I can complain. R i g h t?

the sheep forum is down the street, to the right.



Daisey77 said:


> I want to know why the only program he approves of is the one he's on.


can't ask directly, Missy?

I've stated my answer upstream and many times before.

And if you read more notes you would know the answer. I don't really approve of any of the programs that weren't very targeted.

How much fraud as there on just UI so far? Too much I'd say.

but since you missed it: I applied for UI 3/20/20. Applied JUST to see if the fed $600 was real and not prorated. Applied, tried to aim for PUA, but they went with a W2 job that ended for me a year prior to 2020; a job where I could have applied for UI, but didn't because I didn't need it. You see, as explained before,calif EDD counts and tracks any W2 in the past 18 months as valid, so they ignored the info I entered for Uber and HopSkipDrive and only went with my paltry W2 job.

And as of today I'm on my 3rd ext and getting the fed $300 cheese. Now you can go ahead an wail on that, but as noted we still are a net net payer of Fed taxes, so it didn't bother me I was getting something I don't need or require.

Perhaps the PPP should have had a different name and not included 'protect payroll' as it's mandate. But they did, and here we are. Accept or move on to next issue. k?



New2This said:


> Is he entitled to PPP money?


trick question. Sole proprietor is written into the PPP 'bill'.

Back at you: is said person on UI/PUA?

Tag, u r it.


----------



## New2This (Dec 27, 2015)

SHalester said:


> trick question. Sole proprietor is written into the PPP 'bill'.
> 
> Back at you: is said person on UI/PUA?
> 
> Tag, u r it.


For my example nope no UI/PUA. Just an Independent Contractor/Sole Proprietor one-man operation (no employees just him) who saw a significant decrease in income because of Coronavirus and lockdowns.

Would you have a problem with him getting PPP and getting it forgiven?

Again not harassing you, I'm trying to figure out why you are so stuck on drivers not getting PPP when other similar circumstances (I think) you're ok with them getting it.


----------



## GIGorJOB (Feb 29, 2020)

Daisey77 said:


> You're right, State UI is for individuals... individuals who are EMPLOYEES. You got State UI because you guys were deemed employees last year. I know how much you loved being called in employee&#128517; somehow you failed to recognize you were an employee . . . yet somehow you're getting State UI because you were in fact an employee? I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but if you were in fact never an employee like deep state you are not, doesn't that mean you were collecting unemployment in a fraudulent manner for what it was not intended for? *Gasp* yes you are in fact one of us&#129335;‍♀
> 
> Of course I pay federal taxes. You surely don't think PUA isn't federally taxed, do you? In fact I overpaid. Hence I got a refund&#128513;
> 
> ...


Just for the record, as I'm sure most already know, there is a difference between PUC and PUA. Maybe it's an issue of semantics but my understanding of it is, that PUA expands UI to cover non traditional employees, even those who are not employees at all, with exceptions. So maybe in some cases and states, individuals were or were already deemed employees for their states' UI. In others, it was the PUA that covered. And I'm sure some didn't know which they were receiving as it was issued through their respective state anyway.

Certainly don't want anyone to misinterpret things incorrectly and didn't want to get into various UI details. It was not a matter of if the state's changed or altered things, as I don't know that or if they had that ability in the first place but I'll take your word for it.

The issue was also the guidance and how interpreted and thereby the messaging that was relayed to public here via eligibility, FAQ's, how some also interpreted when you called in inquiring (if you got through), etc. And some of it was also only my understanding of it, which I may have stated. All of which is influenced by the specific state's UI.

To get any of the PUC here, you must have first qualified for the state UI as a traditional employee and as they defined it, and if not, then you must have qualified for PUA, then get PUC, when available. All through the state, the same application process, they took care of the rest. Probably the same in many places.

I imagine the state's thresholds and requirements for "their" UI varied tremendously though. I also do more outside of just delivery gig work as well and had the "ability" to earn throughout the entire pandemic, it was less and more practical at times though. So I was employed and through various means, which typically makes you disqualified in most cases for most UI programs, so attempting to claim partial unemployment was not something I was interested in.

Would have been hard to explain away, besides the fact that delivery demand increased but also, since it was still my state's UI standards of partial unemployment that decided, even though it would have been through PUA. That's the issue, so while I'm not suggesting anyone is claiming this, the Fed programs were not truly independent in that way. In many ways the state's underlying guidelines still controlled.

At the time, my state had a bad system set up by a very vague and ambiguous standard that counted up to 4 days of work per week with "work" being very loosely defined. They have since switched to an hourly standard but well after.

As stated, nothing stopped me from earning, I did not become unemployed, and none of the various exceptions applied, so the consensus for me was ineligibility and could have been viewed as simply quitting or refusing (unwilling) and so didn't bother messing around with it.

That will vary for others though and includes a lot of exceptions of the federal level, as well as how their state treats it, which includes more than just whether one is technically employed or not. Ride-share was treated a bit differently and was far more nuanced, as some areas may have restricted this and was, and may still be, far less practical than delivery for pandemic related reasons which is mostly non contact.


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

If you started on PUA you remained on PUA. PEUC kicked in after States UI ran out which in my state was at 26 weeks. I know PUA allowed for partial unemployment. Whether you had W-2s or not in your state's qualifying base period, determined what program you were put on. I know my State didn't allow mixed earnings. You could not have W-2s and self-employment income it defaulted to the W-2 income but now the new Relief act allows for mixed Money and they actually get an extra $100 a week


----------



## GIGorJOB (Feb 29, 2020)

Daisey77 said:


> If you started on PUA you remained on PUA. PEUC kicked in after States UI ran out which in my state was at 26 weeks. I know PUA allowed for partial unemployment. Whether you had W-2s or not in your state's qualifying base period, determined what program you were put on. I know my State didn't allow mixed earnings. You could not have W-2s and self-employment income it defaulted to the W-2 income but now the new Relief act allows for mixed Money and they actually get an extra $100 a week


I see where I should have inserted the extra letter. Referring to FPUC as PUC, the $300 and $600 extra payments, as opposed to PEUC, the extension, etc. Speaking for myself but think that also highlights the way some state's marketing and guidance materials shaped our narratives relative the programs vs others.

Interesting about the new Relief act. Good to know, thanks. Still wouldn't apply to me though. If I did ride-share only, would have probably applied and felt much safer making the argument, even if only collecting partial.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

Not to upset my friend SHalester but I just signed the documents for my second draw PPP.

The first application I filed asked for my schedule C and it was rejected because line 31 (profit or loss) showed no income. But they changed the rules to look at line 7 (gross income) so I reapplied. and it looks like Ive been approved


----------



## Daisey77 (Jan 13, 2016)

oldfart said:


> Not to upset my friend SHalester but I just signed the documents for my second draw PPP.
> 
> The first application I filed asked for my schedule C and it was rejected because line 31 (profit or loss) showed no income. But they changed the rules to look at line 7 (gross income) so I reapplied. and it looks like Ive been approved


That's awesome!! Congrats!! I signed last week. Waiting on the funds.


----------



## JeanOcelot0 (Dec 30, 2020)

This is why I advocate giving out CHEESE to everyone at the same level.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

Daisey77 said:


> That's awesome!! Congrats!! I signed last week. Waiting on the funds.


 The money showed up friday.... less Bank of Americas $15 wire fee


----------



## DDW (Jul 1, 2019)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/rudolph-brooks-ppp/2021/04/25/a4a139aa-a5d9-11eb-8c1a-56f0cb4ff3b5_story.html


----------



## Big Lou (Dec 11, 2019)

It was almost a mandate to rush the PPP applications and get the money out to those who it was intended for. 
Lots of drivers were banking on the forgiveness part of the loan with the promise of the easy money.

It is now time to pay the piper.. 
With all the fraud going on, it's now hunting time for the IRS and the local State tax boards. It may not be now for the fraudsters, but they will get to them one at a time.


----------

