When the Forms W-2 were handed out this past January 30 and 31, an ugly "bug" in the Metropolitan Payroll Office became apparent.
First and most important, the dollar amounts in "Box 1" of several Forms W-2 were incorrect. With some questionable forms, all presumably generated by the same computer program, it casts doubt on the accuracy of all the others. In theory, the dollar amounts should have accumulated throughout the year for "Box 1" money for each employee in the same manner. Apparently, some supplements were not included in the "Box 1" money of some teachers. How this could have happened is a question for the computer science debugging process. This is important since it sheds light on how different classes of employees' income was totaled for W-2 reporting purposes. As a general accounting ideal, when carrying out the totaling process at the end of the year, income from whatever source should have been put together in the "Box 1" as long as it was taxable.
Second, there was a change in the name of the employer. Instead of "Metropolitan Public Schools" being listed, it was "MNPS General Purpose Fund." This change will probably cause the entire electronic file to be rejected by the IRS computer in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The IRS matches the first four letters of the business name with the Employer Identification Number on the W-2. The number was not changed. The name is different. This means trouble for someone.
Third, there was no address of the employer. No E-file preparer can file such a W-2 as printed. The only way is to modify it based on last year's name and address, which the E-file preparer has in his or her file. The IRS also has this information connected to the Employer Identification Number.
Fourth, although IRS regulations do not prohibit giving the W-2 to the employee without an envelope, it has been some years since the confidentiality of the W-2 has been compromised. The paychecks themselves are handed out in a confidential manner under the negotiated agreement. The spirit of the agreement also covers such payroll information as is shown on the W-2.
Who is responsible? There will be finger pointing between the business office of the school system and the "downtown" payroll administrators. It may be impossible to nail down one specific person who failed to take ownership of the problems as they developed. In such case, the only person who can be blamed is Mayor Bill Purcell, who insisted on consolidating the payroll operation on the theory that it would be more "efficient." Not only this mistake, but ongoing problems with the various pay issues, shows Purcell's dream to be illusory.