News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

flynnibus

Premium Member
I didn't get very far, but noticed this:


That sounds factually incorrect to me. Didn't the law go out of it's way to say that RCID was not being removed and just renamed.


That sounds like it is implying that a new district was created, to replace the one abolished above. Which, again, didn't the law specifically say this is not what was being done? Along with, aren't the methods to create a new district well defined and not what was done.
I think you're splitting hairs. The first law passed did in fact abolish the district (tho of course we never hit the date before the law was essentially replaced). And the second statement is written in a kind of sequential method that doesn't really invalidate what it says... because reconstituted here can be interpreted to simply mean the repeal of the old law+new changes.. which is what the second law did.
 

mmascari

Well-Known Member
I think you're splitting hairs. The first law passed did in fact abolish the district (tho of course we never hit the date before the law was essentially replaced).
Not "On February 27, 2023" it didn't. If you play fast and loose with facts in an official report, what's the point. Other facts may be just as fast and loose. If the report reader needs to research them all, what's the point?

And the second statement is written in a kind of sequential method that doesn't really invalidate what it says... because reconstituted here can be interpreted to simply mean the repeal of the old law+new changes.. which is what the second law did.
Had the kept the first law, and then created a new district, sure reconstituted one. But, again, aren't there all kinds of other laws about how to create a special district? Ones that were not modified, overridden, or followed. Slapping a new name on it, while explicitly saying it is not going away, isn't really reconstituted.

I could probably see that it's just worded super poorly and really means "reconstituted the governing board of the district", since it does run on to say "installed a new five-person board". However, I don't think that was just worded poorly but done on purpose to imply something different than what occurred.

That type of implication and misdirection seems to be the goal of lots of the report.
 

monothingie

Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.
Premium Member

Funny how this doesn’t make it to the front page of this site, but when a bitter ex-employee wants to advance their own agenda it gets a banner story about “Desantis’ CFTOD does bad thing”.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
They sent their 'report' to some media outlets in advance. Based on what I've seen on Twitter so far I'm guessing they only sent it to friendly outlets. Has anyone seen reporting on it in the broader media spectrum yet?

Work keeps interupting me from reading it... but just the introduction alone makes you believe the whole thing is political theater.

Only real substantial thing I've read so far that isn't eye rolling is they say the district wasn't claiming the Disney benefits to employees as a taxable benefit. And that I agree with.. probably should have been.

The rest is so hard to read through - because you literally take notes on the absurdity like every paragraph. Then work keeps pulling me away.
 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Can someone explain why the district is saying it’s employees need to pay taxes on their park pass benefit? I don’t understand how that works.
 

DCBaker

Premium Member
Can someone explain why the district is saying it’s employees need to pay taxes on their park pass benefit? I don’t understand how that works.

Here's an article from the Orlando Sentinel on this.

Employees at Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Disney World oversight district owe the Internal Revenue Service more than $2 million in back taxes, according to an internal memo obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.

The issue stems from free Disney passes employees and retirees received for years as part of their benefits, district administrator Glen Gilzean wrote in an email Friday to employees explaining the situation.

“It has come to the attention of the district administration that the previous leadership chose not to inform staff about their IRS obligations to pay legally owed taxes on season pass benefits,” Gilzean wrote. “This has resulted in our employees owing over $2 million in income back taxes.”

The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District is working to resolve the matter by covering the back taxes owed by employees and retirees and is awaiting a response from the IRS, Gilzean wrote.

“It was a top priority of our leadership team to ensure that our employees are not penalized for previous failures,” he said.

District employees have informed leadership that they were unaware of the tax liability, Matthew Oberly, a district spokesman said in an email.

“CFTOD team members have communicated they appreciate the administration’s willingness to absorb a significant financial burden that accumulated over the past several years,” he said.

Federal law bars the IRS from confirming or denying correspondence in tax-related matters, an IRS spokesman said. Disney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Roughly 400 people work for the Disney district, which has been at the center of DeSantis’ battle with Disney. His new hand-picked board replaced Disney-friendly members in February, part of a state takeover of what was previously known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

The new board took aim at a perks program that provided theme park passes and Disney discounts to employees. They accused the previous Disney-friendly administration of maintaining an “unethical” program that exclusively benefited Disney over other businesses. But the board faced a backlash from some employees who said the theme park passes were a key factor in their decision to work there.

The Disney perks cost $2.5 million in 2022, according to district officials.

In exchange for ending the program, the board approved a $3,000 yearly stipend. Unionized employees are waiting for that benefit, which is subject to bargaining.

Both the district and the employees could face tax implications if it’s true taxes were never paid on the Disney passes, said Charlotte A. Erdmann, the founding attorney of Orlando Tax Law.

“The Disney passes were likely a taxable benefit, similar to wages or bonuses,” said Erdmann, who is not affiliated with the district and has not reviewed the matter in its entirety. “Due to the nature of the benefit, they were unlike cafeteria plans, medical benefits and other pre-tax benefits. They are also of substantial value.”

If the district pays the tax liability, including that of its employees, the taxpayers would be footing the bill, Erdmann said. Disney and its affiliates pay about 86% of the district’s property taxes.

Gilzean reiterated to employees that he is working to fix the tax issue.

“I understand the stress that outstanding tax issues with the IRS can cause for our team,” Gilzean wrote. “Please be assured that we are diligently working to resolve this matter as soon as possible.”


 

castlecake2.0

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Here's an article from the Orlando Sentinel on this.




I still don’t understand why the employees are responsible for paying taxes on the passes though? Wouldn’t the district pay tax on them when purchased from Disney? Does this mean other third party and Disney employees should be paying taxes on their passes? I don’t understand.
 

DocAlan02

Active Member
I still don’t understand why the employees are responsible for paying taxes on the passes though? Wouldn’t the district pay tax on them when purchased from Disney? Does this mean other third party and Disney employees should be paying taxes on their passes? I don’t understand.
I assume this means income tax rather than sales tax. The benefit must be counting as income.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
Here's an article from the Orlando Sentinel on this.




Wait, Disney billed RCID for all the tickets, gifts, etc., RCID paid for all this and presumably paid the taxes for all this, and RCID gave them to the RCID employees.

The RCID employees then must pay taxes on these things again?
 
Last edited:

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
Wait, Disney billed RCID for all the tickets, gifts, etc., RCID paid for all this and presumably paid the taxes for all this, and gave them to the RCID employees.

The RCID employees then must pay taxes on these things again?

It depends on how the IRS views those fringe benefits as either taxable or not.

I'm pretty sure RCID's accountants are familiar with the IRC.
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
Most benefits of employment are taxed except for Section 125 plans, which often include medical, dental and vision. Anything which is not a 125 plan is considered income.

This is the same reason why when Disney gives a gift card to employees for various recognition purposes, it is considered 'imputed income' and is taxed accordingly. They do the same thing with Disney Aspire (educational coverage at select institutions for U.S. hourly employees), though Disney pays the taxes for that.
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
My issue is, it seems if the RCID employees pay taxes of these items, the IRS collected taxes TWICE on the same item.
RCID did not pay taxes on the park admission, nor did the employees, which is why they are being called out in the report. Someone has to pay the bill.

Former district administrator John Classe was aware these benefits should be taxed, but decided to consider it "employee training" to dodge the taxes. It's ironic, because if we were to accept his argument that it is "employee training" then there's an FLSA violation there for unpaid wages, as training would be compensable time (unless for some reason the various CBAs exempt it, which is highly unlikely).
 

TtocsMc

Active Member
I assume this means income tax rather than sales tax. The benefit must be counting as income.
How would the employees know the taxable amount in order to claim it as their income? And based on how often they use the passes, or if they took advantage of discounts with food or hotels, how could they possibly know what to claim? It would vary based on the individual and their usage of the benefits.
 

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
RCID did not pay taxes on the park admission, nor did the employees, which is why they are being called out in the report. Someone has to pay the bill.

Former district administrator John Classe was aware these benefits should be taxed, but decided to consider it "employee training" to dodge the taxes.
I thought I saw an invoice posted showing what Disney billed RCID someplace. It did not include tax?
 

LAKid53

Official Member of the Girly Girl Fan Club
Premium Member
My issue is, it seems if the RCID employees pay taxes of these items, the IRS collected taxes TWICE on the same item.

That's not correct. RCID wouldn't pay any taxes on the passes, neither sales or income as the purchase of them would be an expense item.

Depending on the FMV and the de minimis rule, the employee may or may not owe income tax.

As I said, I'm sure RCID'S accounting and payroll staff are familiar with the IRC regulations on employee benefits. I'm skeptical of the claim. No employer is going to provide benefits that may be subject to federal income taxes and NOT include the value of the benefit on the employees' W-2.
 

Brian

Well-Known Member
I thought I saw an invoice posted showing what Disney billed RCID someplace. It did not include tax?
I think you're confusing income tax for sales tax. As @LAKid53 pointed out, the District is exempt from paying sales tax as a government entity. However, their employees are not exempt from paying federal income tax. Speaking broadly, the IRS considers most employee benefits to be taxable income, the cost (to the employee) of which is added to the tax liability they already have for their salary. In addition to park admission such as this case, these are also things which are generally accepted as taxable by the IRS:

  • Discretionary bonuses (including gift cards)
  • Income from the exercise of nonstatutory stock options
  • Taxable income from the issuance or vesting of restricted stock
  • Employer-provided cell phone (nonbusiness use)
  • Gym memberships
  • Employer-provided vehicle or car lease
  • Transportation benefits in excess of employer/employee pretax deferrals under a Section 132 Plan
  • Housing allowance
  • Moving expenses
  • Meals and lodging (distinct from business travel)
  • Reimbursement for classes or development unrelated to work (e.g., foreign language classes, if those classes are not work-related)
  • Travel expenses not related to business (e.g., an extension to a business trip)
  • Group term life insurance (greater than $50,000 of coverage)
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom