Today, IRS Commissioner Koskinen painted a clear picture of how the IRS plans on “overseeing” billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. When asked by Health Subcommittee Chairman Brady if the IRS would be following the law and collecting taxpayer dollars that went to people who were not eligible, Koskinen simply said, “Wherever we can, we follow the law.” [House Ways and Means Committee]
Related Posts
You Know It’s Officially Tax Season When Someone Threatens an IRS Office with a Bomb
- Caleb Newquist
- February 8, 2011
Amiright? Apparently, this guy in Sarasota, Florida was just messing with everyone but, of course, that still doesn’t go over very well with the local authorities.
“About 11:45 a.m. a 59-year-old man walked into the center with a briefcase and a box,” said Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office Capt. Paul Richard. “He placed it on what’s been described to me as a counter top and told personnel there that he had a bomb,” Richard said. IRS security personnel at the office managed to subdue the man and then hand him over to deputies. The office houses 60 employees, who were evacuated during the episode. The sheriff’s office bomb squad later confirmed there was no explosive or destructive device in either the box or the briefcase.
Some IRS Employees Living by the Motto ‘Do as I Say, Not as I Do’
- Caleb Newquist
- June 21, 2011
There’s no shame in asking for help, IRS employees, if that’s what this is about. Don’t forget that the Commish isn’t too proud to ask for help.
In 2008, the year for which most recent data was available, IRS computer programs flagged compliance issues for more than 8,000 of its 109,469 employees and ultimately determined that almost 2.8% had not complied with the law. But those monitoring systems missed 133 additional employees who were potentially not compliant with tax law over a two-year period, according to the audit. The employees were flagged for potentially filing their tax returns late, paying their taxes late, not reporting all of their income and at least one example of a criminal investigation with an additional tax assessment.
Treasury Report: IRS Must Beef Up Oversight Of Its Own Employees [Dow Jones]
The TIGTA Would Prefer It if the IRS Could Use a Nicer Term Than “Tax Protester”
- Caleb Newquist
- July 28, 2010
Back in 1998 when some of you were just starting your careers, some of you were discovering alcohol and some of you still hadn’t hit puberty, Congress enacted the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98). In Section 3707 of this piece of legislative ingenuity, the IRS is prohibited from using the term “illegal tax protesters or any similar designations.”
Why no name calling? The TIGTA claims it “may stigmatize taxpayers and may cause employee bias in future contacts with these taxpayers.” Plus, it really hurst people’s feelings.
This latest edition of government-mandated IRS bashing especially seems like a stretch since this “problem” of calling a spade a spade isn’t that widespread:
We found that, out of approximately 80.6 million records and cases, there were 196 instances in which employees had labeled taxpayers as “Tax Protester,” “Constitutionally Challenged,” or other similar designations in case narratives on the following computer systems during the period of October 2008 through September 2009[.]
For starters, “Constitutionally Challenged” sounds like something you might apply to a Tea Party member. Secondly, you can do the math on the 196 instances out of 80-odd million but the concern on the part of the Inspector General might be overblown.
Luckily for us citizens, we can throw around any term we want with reckless abandon and there’s no repercussions. That being said, the TIGTA didn’t make any recommendations to the IRS on how to curb the usage of axtay rotestorpay and the IRS didn’t buy the Inspector’s story that the 196 instances were, in fact, violations. So, if you’ve come to the conclusion that this TIGTA report was the biggest waste of time and tax dollars in the history of the Treasury Department, you probably wouldn’t be far off.
