Discussion:IRS Could Use Mortgage Data to Pursue Tax Evaders
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> IRS Could Use Mortgage Data to Pursue Tax Evaders
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> IRS Could Use Mortgage Data to Pursue Tax Evaders
| 2 September 2009 | |
| [1]
WTH! Is this new information for the IRS?!? Has the IRS forgot about economic reality audits? This is like me telling my son to wipe after he does #2s. I have no interest in joining the dark side, but the IRS could gather 50 well-seasoned tax preparers, pay them $200K each, and these guys and gals would reap 100x their costs in additional tax revenue. | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| I've often wondered why the IRS can't see what we, as tax pros see. It would be so easy to find audit targets just by looking at the tax returns. | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| I thought that would have been a basic part of the DIF score. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 2 September 2009 |
| Even before Economic Reality audits, 'how are you paying for this' was often a question asked, but usually on Schedule C audits. So if Mr. White Collar worker seems to paying far more mortgage than he and wife can afford, where should we look for unreported income? I am curious what the rest of you do when you see this? I often ask how far behind they are on credit cards etc.
I think the more important fact garnered here is that people are not filing when they discover that their pile of mortgage interest does not wipe out tax liability. | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| "but I gave $10,000 to the church, why didn't that wipe out my $10,000 tax bill?" | |
Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said: | 2 September 2009 |
| I met an enrolled agent at a function and in industry speak he asked me "Do you have any clients that don't eat"?
While my practice doesn'thave that, I understood his point perfectly. kevins point is spot on. You see a tax return and shake your head. What about all the "off the book" employees etc.... A random spot check of employees at most small restaurants would uncover millions! | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| If the IRS put me in charge of IRS Collections - it would be a dark dark experience for many. | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| "but usually on Schedule C audits." If I was the commish, I'd stop all Scd. C audits for 5 years.
These people have been the low hanging fruit for too long. Let's turn up the heat elsewhere for a while. Let's turn up the heat where the real money is. I can think of a few possibilities (1065 LLCs the "do anything you want" entities). | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| The IRS is watching and reading. Be careful not to give them any free advice. Only give them useless advice like stop auditing 2106's if the TP is in AMT. | |
Mikex2e7n5 (talk|edits) said: | 2 September 2009 |
| MANUAL-TEXT, IRM, Section 35.2.1 , Tax Court Petitions, [Revision date: (Nov. 09, 2005)]
6. Section 7602(e) prohibits the service from using financial status or economic reality techniques to determine the existence of a petitioner's unreported income unless the Service has a“reasonable indication that there is a likelihood of unreported income.” Section 7602(e) concerns the use of indirect methods to reconstruct the taxpayer's income through circumstantial evidence. The statutory notice should be reviewed to determine whether the Service used an indirect method. If an indirect method was used, the Field attorney must review the administrative file to ascertain whether the Service had a reasonable indication that the petitioner was underreporting his or her income prior to utilizing the financial status or economic reality audit techniques. If there is no evidence in the administrative file to show the Service had such an indication, serious consideration should be given to conceding the case. The Field attorney should contact the revenue agent to determine if the agent had any evidence of unreported income not contained in the administrative file before conceding the case, and should consider seeking legal advice to confirm the proposed position in the case..............................
| |
Mikex2e7n5 (talk|edits) said: | 2 September 2009 |
| During previous administrations and different Congressional Majority the IRS had been hampered in going after a lot of these people. Remember when Congress had that Agent from Houston testify that IRS was wasting time on the Advanced Earned Income Credit ? The IRS took a beating on that even though part of the bill authorizing the AEIC, stipulated that so much of the IRS budget was supposed to go to just that.
Since the reorganization, update of computers, a different Congressional majority and a budget shortfall, everyone is pushing IRS to go out and do more. Some of us have already seen it in more audits for Backup withholding on missing, incorrect or not issued TINS, Officer Comp in S-Corps, S-Corp with no 941's, Tool Rental Plans, referrals from State Employment Commmissions, etc | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| Yes, they need to go out and do more. It's time they shone the light on the upper income brackets. Stop fiddling around with the Scd. C's below 100k gross, and the EIC, and go after the big money. Let's get into some of the more complicated returns.
The IRS probably reasons: yes, but we can bring in some money fast with the simple Scd. C audits. The problem is that with such low audit rates on the more complicated returns (e.g. 1065s) you are creating a moral hazard. Who knows what's going on with those returns? What about auditing a 1041 more often? Just to keep people on their toes. | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| I say go after problem preparers and audit all of their clients. Put the problem preparers away for 20 years. Don't let them file taxes from prison. | |
Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said: | 2 September 2009 |
| I agree with Kevin in theory.
I have seen returns that a half - good prepaper would not let through. Some type of Licensing is critical in my view. | |
| September 2, 2009 | |
| They do the best they can with what they have, I suppose. They lack some real world experience, but then, so does INTUIT! Every time they change something, they really have no idea how it affects us out here. And the IRS is largely apparently clueless as to the 'owe' economy that existed in construction before they all went broke. I knew of contractors who got entire houses built on the owe from old paybacks. All it cost was the lot. And there's no paper trail. Just bartering. Makes me sick frankly, that entire industries have stuff like this, and here I am worried about my S corps having reasonable salaries, 1099INT's, etc. because SS system is going broke. | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| Crow JD, do you think one reason the IRS doesn't do more audits of 1065 LLC's is a lack of employees with a solid enough understanding of a) capital accounts and b) the balance sheet? | |
| September 2, 2009 | |
| JR - you are just jealous that you don't have enough "barter dollars" to use to build a house <w>. So am I(jealous); neither do I.
Best I can do is trade for an occasional massage....and then, since I'm terrified of going to jail for tax evasion, I report the $ 200 in income anyway :-) I do sleep well at night tho (the tequila helps). | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 2 September 2009 |
| TPasco: one problem IRS has is retaining good people. Think about it; you are a competent, smart agent and you happen to notice how much the professional is being paid. Surely the thought pops in your head that you could do a better job than that. While man dedicated auditors stay, many do hear the siren song, leaving those who are not sure they could do a better job. | |
| 2 September 2009 | |
| That's the strange thing. You don't have to be good at doing the audit. The audit does it's job when the notice goes out. Even so, you look at some of the requests made by auditors that are discussed here. They sound in the nature of busy work, while the real questions that need to be asked are not asked; the important "loud silences" in the paperwork are not questioned, assumptions are not tested!
I guess in a democracy, we never want the police to be too good. But, you don't have to be good to skeer the bejesus out of someone. Lord, there's some of the rich that need to be "Skeered Straight". I'm fired up now, and I'm not supposed to do any preaching until tommorrow night, it always happens like that. What they need is a button on the computer down at IRS central that says "Get Lucky", only the highers up can push it (though I would let the janitors push it sometimes as well, maybe on Labor Day). When pushed, it randomly selects 50,000 returns of all flavors, and spews out audit notices for postal delivery. Not even Nina Olsen could stop the computer once the button was pushed, this is the equivalent of the doomsday button (for some of the high rollers out there: Ask not for whom the bell tolls!). When one of the top dogs over at HQ get's mad, instead of kicking his dog, or yelling at his wife, he can just push the "Get Lucky" button. Foreign dignitaries could be invited to push the button when in town for a steak dinner. P.S. I also think it would be a good idea to print store coupons on the back of IRS correspondece, this way clients would actually open them. "Coupons Enclosed". | |
| 3 September 2009 | |
| Why not just lower spending, lower taxes and simplify the stinkin' code? Then, the gov't wouldn't have to worry so much about getting all the revenue they are after and us accountants could spend our time adding value to our clients lives instead of doing ridiculous compliance work. | |
Mikex2e7n5 (talk|edits) said: | 3 September 2009 |
| Actully, (and I say this knowing how it would affect my income) I think the most fair taxes are sales taxes and property taxes. It would tax the underground economy at least. In order to make sales tax "more fair" a graduated sales tax could be used, such as the first $15 of a shirt is taxed at one rate while the $50 to $100 could be taxed at a higher rate. (Tax the rich !?!?) Same things with cars with the first $5,000 of auto would be taxed at on rate an gradually going up the higher the price of the car. Would take away hiding of income, etc and probably bring a lot of dollars back onshore. By taxing real property (at the purchase price not the apprased value) you would be getting money from people based on what they bought and for how much. Would not overtax old people who bought decades ago and just happens to live next door where a new mall is going in with the accompanying skyrocketing property values.
Of course the downside of this (sarcasm) would be that Congress would not be able to do their social engineering through the Tax Code. | |
| 3 September 2009 | |
| And since our Congress is interested in creating efficiency and fairness, and motivated to give up Federal-based control, then I see this as very likely. Let's all continue exploring this as a viable alternative to income taxes and get behind every Presidential candidate who proposes this. | |
| 4 September 2009 | |
| Mikex2...I agree with you and have often said the same thing. Increase sales tax would make people realize what taxes truly cost them, if disclosed with every transaction. I am not sure I completely agree with the property taxes, depends on what you mean by property taxes (Real Estate) or all property (Cars, investments etc) | |
Wonder Woman USA (talk|edits) said: | 4 September 2009 |
| By taxing real property (at the purchase price not the apprased value) you would be getting money from people based on what they bought and for how much. Would not overtax old people who bought decades ago and just happens to live next door where a new mall is going in with the accompanying skyrocketing property values.
California did that with Prop 13 and there recently has been talk of leaving this program in place for residences but repealing it for commercial property. | |
| 5 September 2009 | |
| I agree that there is alot of income that goes unreported through the "underground economy", that could get taxed if we had a national sales tax. However, we would just be changing the "underground economy" by having more of the flea market type sales with no sales tax being collected or reported. We'd just be changing one uncollected tax for another. | |


