New York Times is reporting that a few thousand newish IRS employees are getting laid off starting tomorrow:
The Internal Revenue Service will begin laying off roughly 6,000 employees on Thursday as part of the Trump administration’s push to downsize the federal work force, three people familiar with the agency’s plans said.
The terminations will target relatively recent hires at the I.R.S., which the Biden administration had attempted to revitalize with a surge of funding and new staff, the people said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
According to what NYT was told, managers told some employees to report to the office with their work-issued property in hand. “Under an executive order, I.R.S. has been directed to terminate probationary employees who were not deemed critical to filing season,” said one email reviewed by NYT. “We don’t have many details that we are permitted to share, but this is all tied to compliance with the executive order.”
Well at least they didn’t get surprised with ominous Business Update meetings on their calendars.
‘Cause they’re in the market. For those of you that still doubt how serious of a force the Internal Revenue Service is, you’d better start paying attention because the the Service is in the market for guns. You would think, that with a certain hawkish administration recently in charge, every government agency would have arms dealers Smith & Wesson on speed dial but maybe change really did occur in DC.
Never mind that for now. The IRS is taking bids right now and they know what they want:
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
The only conclusion we can come to is that somebody (Joe Francis?, Nic Cage?) is about to get their doors kicked down with extreme fucking prejudice. OR the initial visits of the thousands the IRS is making haven’t gone so well and arming their agents to the teeth should help them get their point across. OR maybe Doug Shulman just loves the cold steel of a 12 gauge against his naked skin. Whatever is going on, it’s no joke.
Apparently there’s been a bit of unnecessary confusion out there about the deductibility of marijuana for medical purposes. The Wall St. Journal article that we linked to this morning discusses the problems employers are encountering wi e.g. can’t use HSA funds; they don’t care if you’ve got a card, if you test positive you’re fired).
But the question of deducting the cost of your White Widow et al. that you legally purchase in states like California and Colorado has been making the rounds. After a little discussion, it’s pretty clear that the IRS is not going allow you deduct your pot for tax purposes simply because it’s still illegal at the Federal level. Doctor’s note be damned.
The confusion arose due to the following letter that was sent to New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who had sent a letter to the IRS inquiring about a constituent using a “herb” to treat migraine headaches:
As with many facets of how to treat medical marijuana for tax and other purposes, it appears that those in charge are merely tiptoeing around the question. In the letter, the term “marijuana” is never used explicitly – the term used is “herb”. While it’s my understanding that the specifics of the case involved medical marijuana used for the treatment of migraines, that isn’t specifically stated in the sanitized version of the letter. No use of “marijuana”, just the term “herb.” That could be St. Johns Wort or milk thistle as far as the IRS is concerned.
Fortunately TaxProf Paul Caron clears up for us in a couple of updates from his latest post on this issue:
Update #2:Rev. Rul. 97-9, 1997-1 CB 77, specifically precludes a medical expense deduction for medical marijuana:
An amount paid to obtain a controlled substance (such as marijuana) for medical purposes, in violation of federal law, is not a deductible expense for medical care under § 213. This holding applies even if the state law requires a prescription of a physician to obtain and use the controlled substance and the taxpayer obtains a prescription.
So the IRS in Info. 2010-0080 either was (1) signalling a retreat from its position in Rev. Rul. 97-9 by not mentioning the federal legality of the substance; (2) implicitly referring only to legal herbs (and hence not covering marijuana).
Update #3: I am told by an enterprising reporter that the herb in question in Info. 2010-0080 is Petadolex, so it appears that interpretation #2 above controls and the conclusion in Rev. Rul. 97-9 denying a medical expense deduction for medicial marijuana still obtains.
So there you have it. Regardless if you have glaucoma, cancer, HIV, chronic pain, high anxiety or any ailment that marijuana can effectively alleviate, don’t bother trying to include it on Schedule A. We’d ask the IRS to implore a little common sense here but legally, as long as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level that’s not going to happen. And from a more practical standpoint, we’re still talking about the IRS.
The AICPA is following the ABA’s strategy of mass letter sending by urging its members to inundate the IRS with tearful pleas to reconsider the Service’s Tax Preparer Registration Proposal.
The issue is so serious that the Tax Vice President, Edward Karl, went on the Hill today to testify about the AICPA’s concerns, in what had to have been one raucous hearing:
The AICPA has serious concerns that the proposed IRS regulations are an overreach and would place immense burdens on CPA firms, particularly small- and medium-size firms. Further, the AICPA questions whether the IRS has adequately examined the costs that would be imposed on tax preparers and American taxpayers.
The IRS has proposed four broad new requirements for paid tax return preparers including: mandatory registration, application of enforceable ethical standards, competency testing and continuing education requirements. At [today’s] hearing, the IRS specifically requested comments about registration and the fees tax preparers will be charged for newly required personal taxpayer identification numbers, or PTINs.
While the AICPA has consistently supported the IRS’s efforts to increase tax compliance and elevate ethical conduct through the adoption of a registration process for paid tax return preparers, the AICPA does not believe other elements of the policy are fully justifiable or necessary, according to Karl.
The AICPA is urging all of its 360,000 members to contact the IRS about the proposed regulations to express opposition to elements of the plan.
2 thoughts on “Thousands of IRS Employees Deemed Not Critical to Tax Season Are Getting Laid Off”
The IRS was just starting to show some progress, but it looks like we’re heading back to the bad old days of five or six years ago with computers spitting out notices and penalty assessments with no one to answer the phone. And I guess we can forget about enforcement efforts on the fraudsters with the Employee Retention Credit.
3
The ERC fraudsters are Trump’s friends. Billionaires can put whatever they want on their tax returns now.
3
1
Comments are closed.
Before you go!
Are you Looking for a fresh accounting career opportunity?
Going Concern now has thousands of open accounting jobs.
The IRS was just starting to show some progress, but it looks like we’re heading back to the bad old days of five or six years ago with computers spitting out notices and penalty assessments with no one to answer the phone. And I guess we can forget about enforcement efforts on the fraudsters with the Employee Retention Credit.
The ERC fraudsters are Trump’s friends. Billionaires can put whatever they want on their tax returns now.