[Vendorsmi] The 50% Nonpenalty?

[Joe Sontag]

At a recent administrative hearing, Assistant Program Manager James Hull stated in sworn testimony that there is no compliance issue for those operators who are assessed a 50% penalty for late payment of set-aside fees, but who do not pay the penalty as required by rule.  Rule 27 states that the penalty payment is due with the next vending facility monthly report following notification of the penalty.

If there's no compelling reason for payment of the late fee on time and no consequence where compliance goes, then why even have this so-called penalty in our rules?  Licenses can be (but almost never are) revoked for failure to pay almost everybody else while operating a facility; including the set-aside fee itself.  Somehow I doubt that the Treasury Department takes such a relaxed view when it comes to monies owed to the state for any lawful reason.

If you have ever been slapped with the 50% penalty or you've been hit recently with and agree that you owe the 50% late fee and have not paid it promptly for any reason, I'd like to hear from you regarding statements made by BEP staff  and your situation.  I may be reached at:

suncat0 at gmail.com

or look me up in the Lansing phonebook.

Joe Sontag
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/vendorsmi_nfbnet.org/attachments/20121003/b439fe6e/attachment.html>