Skip navigation

Lpl cm3000-

or Register to post new content in the forum

23 RepliesJump to last post



  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Aug 13, 2010 9:24 pm


You idiots have no idea if this is illegal or not.  I don't believe for a minute that a 100% override arrangement is in the least bit illegal.  Frankly, that's how I add employees.  I take a 100% override and then pay them a percentage of their production on a W-2.  LPL themselves suggested that method of avoiding a 1099 for an employee who wants to be a conventional W-2 employee.  I would tell you that the purpose of the override relationship is much more important in determining if the ex is doing something illegal.  If there is a secret agreement for the overriding rep to defer payment to the ex until singlemom is off his tail, that's an entirely different matter, but the override arrangement itself is not in the slightest bit illegal or uncommon.

Singlemom, be VERY careful about using ANY information you glean on this forum.  There is a reason you pay an attorney to represent you.


The only idiot is one who beleives a guy overrides his commision and receives $0 income. What a nice guy he is. For the record I never said anything about overrides being illegal.(only fraud, misrep, and tax evasion assuming single mom is accurate in her assertion)

Learn to read w/ precision, especially before rambling on because one time you did an override to a rep. There is something called "good faith" which is detrimental here.

Oh and for the record, you are nothing like Bill Singer....bwah.

Aug 31, 2010 8:34 pm

 I'm dealing with a deabeat dad here and I am trying to get a grip on how his commissions are paid and why he isn't getting a regular 1099. I know he has a Master ID and a split and a shared ID

Aug 31, 2010 9:29 pm

I guess it's possible that he is 100% overriding his commissions, and then having the amount owed to him stuck into a brokerage account under someone else's name.  However, someone (presumably whoever overrode the commissions) would have had to pay taxes on that revenue, and I doubt that his "accomplice" would get involved in tax evasion, unless there was something in it for him.  I suppose the accomplice could just pay the taxes, and move the after-tax amount into a brokerage account in his name.  But at that point, why not just pay the child support?  Something just sounds wrong here.