Bush Request for IRS Not Enough (prevents strong audits of the rich?)

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34488-2004Mar29.html

Bush Request for IRS Not Enough (prevents strong audits of the rich?)

President's Agency Oversight Board Calls for an Additional $530 Million By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 30, 2004; Page E01


President Bush's 2005 budget request for the Internal Revenue Service would seriously shortchange the agency's tax collection activities, leaving a half-million delinquent tax accounts uncollected, 15 million service calls unanswered and nearly 46,000 audits unscheduled, according to the president's own IRS oversight board.

A strongly worded special report, to be released today, says Bush's $10.7 billion budget for the IRS falls at least $230 million short of the agency's immediate needs and fails to match the administration's tough talk on tax law enforcement. The president requested a 4.6 percent boost to the IRS's budget, but the board says much of that will be swallowed by pay increases and other costs unconnected to tax collection.

The oversight board -- which includes seven presidential appointees as well as the Internal Revenue commissioner and Treasury secretary -- implores Congress to boost Bush's request by $530 million. That investment would yield $5 billion each year in taxes that otherwise would go uncollected, the board said. <snip>

The four-year-old oversight body has never issued such a critique. But board officials said they were driven to speak out by a budget request that, for the fourth year in a row, calls for IRS staff increases but fails to fund them. With the oversight board recommending a 10 percent boost to the IRS's budget, board members said they needed to issue a detailed justification. <snip>

[Cary]

1. I am a tax lawyer and I will tell you that not only. . .

has Bush's starve the beast strategy curtailed audits on rich tax cheats, but it has also curtailed fair dealing with more modest issues. The IRS has essentially eliminated offers in compromise by changing the standards to preclude anyone who works from working a deal.

Moreover, the bankruptcy legislation that Congress threatens to pass will make it even more difficult to discharge taxes.

We, the middle class, are not represented in Washington. We haven't been represented for a long time.

[smirkymonkey]

2. Does that mean if you are an average

citizen and you owe taxes, they won't let you set up a payment plan or just that they won't cut you any breaks on repayment of the full amount?

[papau]

5. payment plans are still available

:-)

[Cary]

6. Yes, payment plans are still available and they are easy to set up.

But if you owe a lot of money--and many people do after penalties and interest are assessed--you may not be able to even keep up with the interest.

Most of my clients got into trouble by messing up, rather than by doing something evasive. Do we want them permanently indentured to the U.S.? Or do we want them to have an opportunity to get back on the straight and narrow?

[Mel]

3. Also from what I understand

the IRS goes after the EIC filers more harshly than the rich.

I know watching Senator Nickles speak of EIC that he loathes people that use it and thinks they are all tax cheats. Oh, he doesn't come right out and say that but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what he thinks of the working poor.

[papau]

4. Without offers in compromise, we get backlog and dismissal

but with uncertainty for a long period.

I was amazed by the Prudential wearing the IRS down prior to the Reagan settlement in the mid-80's

for tax years 57 and 58!

But I was new to taxes back then.

:-)

As far as I can see, the change and hide income deals that are smell test failures on Wall Street are still being sold with no one all that worried. Seems FASB and EITF are just not interested in killing the golden goose - at lease not as long as they have Bush preventing any serious reform (the SEC backdown being the latest).

And our media ignores because of poor work habits, or because the multi-nationals that own the media see no reason to discuss.