Provides relative to the Department of Children and Family Services child support employer reporting program. (8/1/20)
The law, once enacted, mandates service-recipients to submit detailed reports to the DCFS within 20 days of first making payment to a nonemployee. The required information includes the nonemployee's name, address, and social security number, as well as the service-recipient's details. This expansion of the reporting framework aims to increase the efficiency of child support enforcement and ensure compliance by making it harder for individuals to evade their financial responsibilities. The provision is intended to address gaps in the existing law that only focused on employers.
Senate Bill 336, introduced by Senator Allain, focuses on enhancing the child support employer reporting program managed by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in Louisiana. The bill extends the mandatory reporting requirements not only to employers but also to service-recipients, defined according to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This includes individuals or organizations contracting for services with nonemployees. The intention is to improve the collection of child support from individuals who owe it by ensuring timely reporting of wages or remuneration from service-recipients to the DCFS.
General sentiment around SB 336 appears to be supportive, especially among those advocating for stronger enforcement of child support laws. Supporters argue that the bill will help close loopholes that allow noncompliance with child support obligations. However, there may also be some concerns regarding the administrative burden on service-recipients who must adapt to these reporting requirements, as well as the implications for privacy regarding the data shared with the DCFS. Yet, the overarching sentiment remains focused on enhancing child support collection efforts.
Notable points of contention include the administrative challenges that small businesses or individuals acting as service-recipients may face in complying with the new reporting requirements. Some may argue that adding another layer of bureaucracy could deter individuals from hiring freelancers or contractors. Additionally, there might be discussions surrounding the balancing of efficient enforcement measures with the need to protect the privacy of individuals whose information is being reported. Stakeholders may raise concerns about the potential penalties for noncompliance, which could extend to both employers and service-recipients.