Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue from the IRS side is that people claim self employment in order to get tax credits. It is not at all uncommon. I think more people who are 1099 employees get audited.
The tax credits are provided by the government, so don't blame the player blame the game.
The issue from the IRS side is that people claim self employment in order to get tax credits. It is not at all uncommon. I think more people who are 1099 employees get audited.
"1099 employees" is an oxymoron. A 1099-NEC (previously a 1099-MISC) is for non-employee compensation, aka self-employed.
The issue from the IRS side is that people claim self employment in order to get tax credits. It is not at all uncommon. I think more people who are 1099 employees get audited.
There is no such thing as a 1099 "employee". Recipients of 1099s are contractors, many of whom are incorrectly classified because the employer doesn't want to pay the costs associated with employees.
Our tax system is a mess. Audits should never be necessary if the tax code and laws were setup properly. In any company with today's technology you configure your accounting system properly the taxes are calculated and the documentation collected by the IRS and that's your taxes due. There should need to be audits ever, the IRS should be an investigative body that goes out to find companies and businesses that isn't properly reporting and setting their accounting systems correctly. Individual auditing shouldn't be necessary at all as there are very few ways a W2 worker can owe taxes other than some remote work arrangement.
It's not that simple, because there are options in the tax code that change the tax treatment, depending on the option the taxpayer chooses. In addition, there are major differences between GAAP rules and tax rules on many items, especially capital expenditure amortization. I've spent teh bulk of the last 30 years working on accounting systems, and have seen the issues up close.
For individuals with only W-2 income and 1099 interest/dividend income, taxes are pretty simple. Taxpayers who own businesses run into issues on what their income is, and some people make it much harder by having their business pay personal expenses in an effort to make them deductible.
Give me the data on how much it cost and the time when you’ve done nothing wrong. Further do you have any stats that would show how many audits result in no changes?
No it’s basic if you are doing things right and made a simple error. Back to the basic numbers, audit have dropped substantially and hiring more employees over 10 years with the majority of the agents, slated to replace retiring agents is fine, it’s also not in the bill fwiw just people freaking out about it. The stats are less than 1% of people get audited so again it may take time and money if you get audited, that’s life. Are you suggesting there should be no audit? Well that would be silly wouldnt it? There shouldn’t be any random audit? Well that’s seem silly too to have zero random tests and I’m not sure given the numbers it’s absurd at all to increase enforcement from where it is
Prove your claim that it is not costly and stats on audits resulting in changes - the idea is innocent until proven guilty - the way you want it is the other way around. Random audits are just that random - no even idea of any issue. It would be like proving that you didn't commit a crime just because you were in the area.
BTW - that data is without the tripling of auditors proposed and that is the issue - the increase in random audits will be large for those agents to have something to do. Look at the 2010 data in the doc you referenced - it will be higher than that.
The bottom line is this is another tax and spend bill - the idea should be to spend less not find ways to spend more by using officials to get the money through coercion and intimidation.
I’m not sure I claimed all audits were not costly
Quote:
and stats on audits resulting in changes - the idea is innocent until proven guilty - the way you want it is the other way around. Random audits are just that random - no even idea of any issue. It would be like proving that you didn't commit a crime just because you were in the area.
Random audit I turn over my docs and then you tell me what you believe is wrong. I don’t have to prove a crime was not committed. You are fabricating things now
Quote:
BTW - that data is without the tripling of auditors proposed and that is the issue - the increase in random audits will be large for those agents to have something to do.
The bill did not propose tripling auditors, the bill did not propose adding 87k auditors so again either purposely or not you are grossly fabricating what the bill actually said. Which is it?
The CBO did not complete the scoring of the bill until after the bill was signed - the Aug 3 estimate was based on what the house passed last Nov - that was not close to what was signed.
They had an estimate, you implied they were flying completely blind which was clearly BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo
Where do you get 3x - the estimate is cost $80B to gain maybe $128B - that is the CBO figures - not close to 3x - and the only gain is 2027 and beyond and ONLY if go after those making under $200K.
No, the CBO estimate is spending 80B to gain 202B, netting 128B. That is not barely breaking even as you described, it isn't even close. In fact their update to the July 27 amendments shows it bringing in closer to 204B, again nothing like this barely breaking even nonsense you're shoveling.
I’m not sure I claimed all audits were not costly.
You asked me to prove that they were costly - so now it sounds like you agree that they are costly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
Random audit I turn over my docs and then you tell me what you believe is wrong. I don’t have to prove a crime was not committed. You are fabricating things now
Really not how it works, they already have your docs which is your tax return - really not at all close to the reality of what happens if audited - it is not just a quick look at records like you seem to imply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations
The bill did not propose tripling auditors, the bill did not propose adding 87k auditors so again either purposely or not you are grossly fabricating what the bill actually said. Which is it?
The current IRS workforce is about 80K - adding 87K would over double the entire workforce and the expectation is that it will likely be well more than triple the size of the current auditor workforce. There were 8004 auditor agents in April 2019 according to IRS data. There are also approximately 4K of criminal enforcement agents to take action after the audit is completed.
I never said that 87K was all auditors - although the bill does state that over half of the increase is to go to fund positions for “new, specialized enforcement staff" so it is clear that the focus is on these positions. If all 87K added were enforcement, it would be much more like 7-8x more - a ridiculous increase number. The expectation is more like 3x more enforcement and audit agents so that they could do about as many audits as was done in 2010 when 3x more audits were done - that was the stated goal for adding more agents.
The proposed staffing of 167K would be some 50% more than the top number working for the IRS ever - the peak was in 1995 at 114,064 FTEs. That was before automation and internet e-filing. Data processing took more than a quarter of all staff to enter all the data that is now done electronically. Within a couple of years, the data processing staff disappeared altogether as data entry became automated and the workforce stabilized at about 80-90K. So this increase is out of line with the reality of what is needed to enforce the tax code.
The bottom line is that even the head of the IRS under Obama said that the increase is too much - increasing the budget more than 3x more than what he thinks is appropriate to get to the 2010 audit levels. As reported by the New York Times, he thinks $25 billion, or roughly 30 percent of Biden’s proposal would be a more appropriate funding increase and adding more would be wasteful and .
Grow up and quit with the repeated accusations of "fabricating" just because we differ on point of view. It is you that is ignoring what I said and not looking at what the bill actually calls for - the increase is grossly inflated and likely makes people subject to abuse in the name of taxing the "rich".
They had an estimate, you implied they were flying completely blind which was clearly BS.
No, the CBO estimate is spending 80B to gain 202B, netting 128B. That is not barely breaking even as you described, it isn't even close. In fact their update to the July 27 amendments shows it bringing in closer to 204B, again nothing like this barely breaking even nonsense you're shoveling.
The only way to get that number is to target the poor and middle class that estimates show are the ones that are failing to pay what they owe and that they say they will not target so how are you going to get 203B without that being done - the CBO says that "at least" 20B is from those taxpayers. The rest is just speculation that they can get the numbers they are projecting - people change behavior to minimize impact so normally get less than projected.
Also those projections are 75% of the increase is in years 2027-2031- only $40B prior so the years 2022-2026 is not really breaking even with costs essentially matching increases - go look at the projections, they are in the estimate. But also the projection was based on a bill that was out of date - it wasn't until after congress passed the bill that the updated projections came out that showed essentially NO Inflation reduction and that much of the enforcement had to be on those making less than $400k for the numbers to work. The bill is a mess and even the liberal Media seems to be not supporting this bill.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
