Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2022, 03:51 AM
 
7,759 posts, read 3,857,300 times
Reputation: 8846

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
Our small business was "randomly" selected for a full research audit a few years ago. I don't wish that on anyone. The time suck was enormous. The agent comes to your place of business and works there verifying every single transaction for the whole audit year. The prep time to make copies of everything as well as reorganize reports in the forms he needed was ridiculous.

Yes, we passed the audit. No, we didn't owe any additional taxes and I was repeatedly congratulated by the agent for keeping good records. And no we aren't close to being rich guys, we're just a typical small family business with a handful of employees.

So now we're selected again for a new government audit to provide shipping data to the Census bureau. Not voluntary, "you are required by law to provide this data." The info they want is not easy to compile and I've spent hours on it already. I'm going to miss the deadline so I guess we'll find out what the penalty is.
Still reading through all replies but curious as to what your annual revenue is. It sounds like at least $1 Million?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2022, 06:25 AM
 
9,806 posts, read 7,638,556 times
Reputation: 24419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tencent View Post
Still reading through all replies but curious as to what your annual revenue is. It sounds like at least $1 Million?
No, it wasn't that high then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2022, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
1,481 posts, read 1,374,040 times
Reputation: 1532
My sister used to do tax prep. She said no one needs to worry about this unless are working under the table or being stupid about taking deductions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2022, 07:48 AM
 
26,181 posts, read 21,481,737 times
Reputation: 22766
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
You asked me to prove that they were costly - so now it sounds like you agree that they are costly.
You made the claim so I asked to to prove it. Your response is a fallacy. Since I asked you to prove your claim you assume I claim the opposite is true, that’s false. You could simply support your claim



Quote:
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.
Well no they don’t already have all of your documents but please tell what the audit entails then. Most Americans who file or should file federal returns are w-2 employees, maybe throw in some 1099s for misc income etc and then account for the fact that 60-70% or more use the standard deduction.

With all that into account, please tell me what else would they ask for? What else could you provide them. Please be specific


Quote:
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.
Did the bill claim an add of 87k? The workforce isn’t doubling. You’ve either ignored weeks worth of information or are purposely being deceitful

Quote:
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.
Can you post a link to anywhere in the Inflation Reduction Act mentions any hiring numbers? Psst you aren’t referencing the bill that past.

Quote:
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 .
I’m not sure I care what what someone under Obama or Bush or Trump said. It’s not relevant at all to what’s in front of it

Quote:
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".
You are fabricating what the bill said. You are referring to a report that was created well before the bill passed as though it’s the bill. You are also purposely or conveniently sprinkling what you’ve read or hear, not quoting the bill. It’s not that we have a different opinion, that’s not the issue I have

I’ll help you make a big correction to the misinformation you continue the spread. It’s a helpful read and should easily show you the error you continue to repeat about what’s in the bill/inflation reduction act

https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/6051...uction-act?amp
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2022, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas & San Diego
6,913 posts, read 3,340,146 times
Reputation: 8629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
You made the claim so I asked to to prove it. Your response is a fallacy. Since I asked you to prove your claim you assume I claim the opposite is true, that’s false. You could simply support your claim
You seemed to agree so no reason to prove it - it is fairly obvious that an audit is expensive with the time involved and cost of hiring an accountant or tax professional. The estimate is that it is normally between $2K and $6K for a basic audit - and it can go up from there. There is also the time involved - audits normally take 3 to 6 months - and will take days of your time. You haven't supported your claim that it is inexpensive - the reality is that an audit is kind of a hidden tax even if did nothing wrong - the burden of proof is often on the taxpayer that something is allowed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Well no they don’t already have all of your documents but please tell what the audit entails then. Most Americans who file or should file federal returns are w-2 employees, maybe throw in some 1099s for misc income etc and then account for the fact that 60-70% or more use the standard deduction.

With all that into account, please tell me what else would they ask for? What else could you provide them.
I don't do assignments - you keep making claims of false info yet provide no proof - try doing a little work and quit with the accusations of false info. It is you that seems to claim stuff is false with zero proof. The fact is that W-2 income is not the issue, the majority of the audits are deductions and other income. The treasury documents that the majority of the issues are with 1099 income. You need to provide them whatever is asked for and often that can be more than just the tax data they already have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Did the bill claim an add of 87k? The workforce isn’t doubling. You’ve either ignored weeks worth of information or are purposely being deceitful

Can you post a link to anywhere in the Inflation Reduction Act mentions any hiring numbers? Psst you aren’t referencing the bill that past.
Again look it up if you want the info - you just want something more to claim is false - I am not going to do that. The hiring number is in thousands of news reports but it comes the Treasury Department report for the plan to spend the $80B - that was the basis for the bills numbers - the actual proposal 86,852 employees.

The bill itself just says $45.637B for enforcement - how are you going to spend that much without hiring many more than the current 12K people in enforcement (IRS numbers) - that is about $3.8M for each person currently in that job - is each going to get their own jet?. The actual number is from the Treasury report on the plan to spend - the report is the basis for the bill and not a misrepresentation of the facts - I never fabricated anything.

Just FYI - The bill that passed only gives budget not actual hires. What is "the bill past"? A bill almost never gives actual figures because it would hinder how it is spent - the report is the plan to spend. It is you that repeatedly makes claims of false information without acknowledging they are real sources and with no information to back up your claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
I’m not sure I care what what someone under Obama or Bush or Trump said. It’s not relevant at all to what’s in front of it

You are fabricating what the bill said. You are referring to a report that was created well before the bill passed as though it’s the bill. You are also purposely or conveniently sprinkling what you’ve read or hear, not quoting the bill. It’s not that we have a different opinion, that’s not the issue I have.

I’ll help you make a big correction to the misinformation you continue the spread. It’s a helpful read and should easily show you the error you continue to repeat about what’s in the bill/inflation reduction act
The importance of prior hiring levels is to show that the number proposed to be added is ridiculous and should have been questioned. I really could care less what your "issues" are I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with saying opinion but you continue to claim info is false and misinformation - I guess I should have not given you the benefit that you will not give to me.

Just to be clear - I have said nothing that is disputed by the link - I actually used it for some of the stuff you keep calling false. It is you that doesn't want to acknowledge the reality, so be it - but to claim info is false when it is clearly not, is really repugnant. Again, get a grip - the only false information is yours - this part of the bill is not supported by many on either side.

Last edited by ddeemo; 08-27-2022 at 02:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2022, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Spain
12,722 posts, read 7,533,782 times
Reputation: 22633
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
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.
Even if it is true that CBO says 20B comes from those taxpayers (and given your history here who knows) that is still spending 80B to raise 183B, which is still completely different than the barely breaking even you were claiming.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
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.
Your opinion that CBO is wrong isn't relevant, clearly you haven't done your own study so you're just injected ddeemo's guesswork as if it was a useful or reliable resource. When your favorite source is yourself your claims about what is fact become just opinion, I'll take CBO over you thanks.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
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.
They updated their estimate, and it still sinks your claim that they are barely breaking even, and your BS about them going blind. You obviously have a political motivation here, I can't think of any other reason why someone would so consistently bend the truth, flat out lie, and support said lies by using yourself as a source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2022, 03:01 PM
 
26,181 posts, read 21,481,737 times
Reputation: 22766
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddeemo View Post
You seemed to agree so no reason to prove it - it is fairly obvious that an audit is expensive with the time involved and cost of hiring an accountant or tax professional. The estimate is that it is normally between $2K and $6K for a basic audit - and it can go up from there. There is also the time involved - audits normally take 3 to 6 months - and will take days of your time. You haven't supported your claim that it is inexpensive - the reality is that an audit is kind of a hidden tax even if did nothing wrong - the burden of proof is often on the taxpayer that something is allowed.
No I clearly don’t agree with you and I asked you to support your claim. It’s particularly odd you can’t do so. In a basic audit of a w2 employe why on earth would it cost 2-6k? Are you taking about or making up cost of all audits?

I didn’t claim it’s inexpensive. You keep projecting a claim that I made but I haven’t. You are simply a dishonest person at this point because you keep fabricating, or if you don’t like the term, lying. That’s exactly what you are doing



Quote:
I don't do assignments - you keep making claims of false info yet provide no proof - try doing a little work and quit with the accusations of false info.
What this translates to is you can’t support your claims, you have no idea of what the average tax payer would face in an audit. Like I said most are standard deduction and w2, ain’t much to go over there but you are pushing a false narrative

Quote:
It is you that seems to claim stuff is false with zero proof
Like what? Be specific

Quote:
The fact is that W-2 income is not the issue, the majority of the audits are deductions and other income.
So you now concede it’s not an issue for the vast majority of tax filers? Cool

Quote:
The treasury documents that the majority of the issues are with 1099 income. You need to provide them whatever is asked for and often that can be more than just the tax data they already have.
The majority of Americans aren’t 1099 paid so your entire stance is crippled by your own admission.



Quote:
Again look it up - it is in thousands of news reports but it comes the Treasury Department report for the plan to spend the $80B - that was the basis for the bills numbers - the actual proposal 86,852 employees. The bill itself just says $45.637B for enforcement - how are you going to spend that much without hiring many more than the current 12K people in enforcement (IRS number) - that is about $3.8M for each person currently in that job - is each going to get their own jet?. The actual number is from the Treasury report on the plan to spend - the report is the basis for the bill and not a misrepresentation of the facts and it is false to claim otherwise - I never fabricated anything.
Actually the bill doesn’t call for any number of new hires. You are lying, have been lying and refuse to recognize it

Quote:
Just FYI - A bill almost never gives actual figures because it would hinder how it is spent - the report is the plan to spend. It is you that repeatedly makes claims of false information without acknowledging they are real sources and with no information to back up your claims.
Well you certainly don’t give factual information so your objection to the bill’s lack is invalid, especially because you fabricate what the bill outlined

Quote:
The importance of prior hiring levels is to show that the number proposed to be added is ridiculous and should have been questioned. I really could care less what your "issues" are I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with saying opinion but you continue to claim info is false and misinformation - I guess I should have not given you the benefit that you will not give to me.
The bill has no hiring figures. No need to keep lying. If you are going to use the report that was done well before the bill you should acknowledge the full information otherwise not only are you lying you are manipulating the choice of data you are using

Quote:
Just to be clear - I have said nothing that is disputed by the link - I actually used it for some of the stuff you keep calling false. It is you that doesn't want to acknowledge the reality, so be it - but to claim info is false when it is clearly not, is really repugnant. Again, get a grip - the only false information is yours - this part of the bill is not supported by many on either side.
Just to be clear you are full of cr ap. There is no outline to hire 87k irs employees in the inflation reduction act. Zero . Nothing. At this point you are nothing but a liar, I’ve pointed out the data, I gave you the reference , you acknowledge the reference and still lie. What else do you have? It’s not integrity so what is it? Why die on this hill ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2022, 05:19 PM
 
26,181 posts, read 21,481,737 times
Reputation: 22766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly Molly View Post
You are an Idiot.
Cb2idiot I’m glad you have created your 40th banned account. Getting some mental help may be f better service to you than creating 10 more CD accounts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2022, 06:40 PM
 
26,181 posts, read 21,481,737 times
Reputation: 22766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly Molly View Post
LMFAO. You need to get lost from this forum you FAILED FOOL.
You are a TOTAL JOKE

DDEEMO you need to report this Idiot to all Moderators. He is TOXIC just like Old Fool Mathjak was.
Right here ddeemo is getting worked just like you are used to in every thread you are in. I’m sure he doesn’t want your association
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2022, 07:15 PM
 
26,181 posts, read 21,481,737 times
Reputation: 22766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holly Molly View Post
Ddeemo doesn’t agree with my views and that is fine. But you, you are little DEVIL. You are TOXIC to this forum and you need to go.

Those days where handful of you Losers were terrorizing this forum and attacking others are long gone.
Your time is up you Fool.

Good Luck!

Good luck!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:50 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top