Question - for Bob Kamman
AK
from Francy Keiser and his buddies is justified? I referred to IRS's
favorite excuse for answer avoidance as "IRC 26F61B section 6103";
its full blown description is:
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 61 - INFORMATION AND RETURNS
Subchapter B - Miscellaneous Provisions
Sec. 6103. Confidentiality and disclosure of
returns and return information
Francis says that "26 USC § 6103" is all that is needed to describe
this section of law. Does that mean that 'Subtitle F', 'Chapter 61', and
'Subchapter B' are all superfluous? In all of the Internal Revenue
Code, is there only one section 6103? Or are Francis and his buds just
being their usual twit selves?
Seriously, does just the section number uniquely describe any section
of Title 26 code?? AK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Francy post: <<Not only can I say the correct cite for § 6103 of the
Code it I know what it means. Which is more than can be said of what you
posted - you do not even understand how to correctly site a Code
section. If your interested , and you want to go with the long cite of
the § 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States
Code (USC)), it is 26 USC § 6103 - what you cited was absolute
nonsense.>>
End the massive abuses of 26 USC section 6103 - written to protect taxpayers,
not hide IRS misconduct. Remove from our government those IRS 'Disclosure
Officers' who obstruct justice, rather that protect taxpayer privacy.
Reform IRS! AK
Bob Kamman
>>Does that mean that 'Subtitle F', 'Chapter 61', and 'Subchapter B' are all
superfluous?<<
Think of the Code as a library. If you just want to refer to one book, only
its title is needed. If you want to refer to all the books on one shelf, or
all the books in one bookcase, then other classifications are useful.
>> In all of the Internal Revenue Code, is there only one section 6103? <<
Yes
BP
get you to follow them, rhetoric breeds more rhetoric= evasive of the truth.
read for yourself www.stopillegaltax.com
and contact me to discuss. my contact information is at this site.
God Bless you in your choice.
BP
"Bob Kamman" <bobk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011016223425...@mb-cq.aol.com...
Richard Macdonald
news:20011016205657...@mb-mg.aol.com...
>
> Seriously, does just the section number uniquely describe any section
> of Title 26 code?? AK
Yes
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA 16P34
Gib mir Schokolada und niemand wird verletzt!!!
Paul A. Thomas
> I referred to IRS's favorite excuse for answer
> avoidance as "IRC 26F61B section 6103";
How can you possibly ever understand the tax codes, let alone determine
they are being misapplied, if you can't even properly identify them?
> In all of the Internal Revenue
> Code, is there only one section 6103?
Can you find another Section 6103? Have you even bothered to READ any
other code sections?
> Seriously, does just the section number uniquely
> describe any section of Title 26 code??
And Andy learns yet another cold hard fact of life.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
tax...@negia.net
http://www.pat-cpa.com
Frank Keiser
Dow Jones Newswires
October 16, 2001
High-Profile Tax Protester Sentenced To 87 Months In Jail
WASHINGTON -- A high-profile tax protester was sentenced Tuesday to 87
months imprisonment for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by "impeding,
impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of
the Internal Revenue Service" and for failing to file his 1994, 1995 and
1996 federal tax returns, federal authorities said.
Barrie Leslie Konicov, 62, of Amado, Ariz., was sentenced Monday by U.S.
District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, according to Phillip Green, U.S. Attorney
for the Western District of Michigan and Michael Nelson, acting special
agent in charge of the IRS's Criminal Investigation unit.
In addition to being sentenced to jail followed by three years of supervised
release, Konicov must also file correct tax returns and pay all tax
deficiencies, along with paying the costs of prosecution, $11,311.81.
U.S. Attorney Green said Konicov "was the founder of `De-Taxing America,`
`The Connecting Link,` a `metaphysical magazine,` and authored a book
entitled `The Great Snow Job` in which he prompted the false claims that one
could `remove themselves from the taxing system.`" He said Konicov was
convicted earlier this year by a jury after it heard evidence that he and
his wife, employees, "De-Taxing America" clients and others conspired over a
six-year period to defraud the IRS.
Green said IRS investigators determined that the estimated tax loss of just
138 of Konicov's customers who purchased the "De-Taxing America" program
resulted in more than $3.3 million in tax loss, and cited estimates that
over 1,000 persons nationwide purchased Konicov's programs.
October 13, 2001
Judge chastises tax evader, levies prison term
By Ken Palmer
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
A retired autoworker who claimed he was exempt from federal taxes was
sentenced to prison Thursday for tax evasion.
Bruce E. Doughty, 58, of Davison "defied the law" and refused to accept
responsibility for it, said U.S. District Judge Paul V. Gadola.
"We'd be defenseless if everyone adopted your standard and didn't have to
pay taxes," said Gadola, referring to the crisis over terrorism in the
United States. "You put yourself ahead of the law. It just doesn't apply to
you."
Gadola gave Doughty concurrent terms of 8 months in federal prison, to be
followed by 3 years on supervised release, for four counts of tax evasion.
He also ordered Doughty to pay the tax he owes and file his 1040 tax
returns.
Doughty, a former skilled trades worker at the Flint Metal Center, changed
his withholding status to exempt in 1992 after watching a tax protest video
and deciding he was not under the jurisdiction of the IRS, according to
testimony in his trial.
The government said he paid no federal income tax from 1992-95 and owed a
total of $23,000 to the IRS.
In 1998, Doughty transferred his house and three rental properties he owned
into a trust, allegedly to protect himself from possible lawsuits. The
assets were invested in a hotel development project in Hawaii.
Doughty claimed he was tricked into making the investment, but Assistant
U.S. Attorney Robert W. Haviland said the moves protected his assets from
seizure by the government.
"I believe (those assets) are available to Doughty whenever he wants them,"
Haviland told Gadola on Thursday.
Doughty's attorney, Thomas Wilhelm, said Doughty was swayed by the tax
protest movement and strongly believed he was exempt from taxes. In every
other way, he was a stellar citizen who gave 10 percent of his income to his
church, Wilhelm said.
Gadola acknowledged Doughty's otherwise clean record.
"(But) there has to be a message sent here," the judge said.
Doughty will be allowed to report to a federal facility at a later date.
Ken Palmer covers the judicial system. He can be reached at (810) 766-6313.
AK
Bob - Thanks for the clear, reasonable answer to my question. Unfortunately,
those of us who learn "taxes" via 1040 instruction
manuals don't know these things by osmosis or Paul Thomas taunts.
So, how about another question, Bob? Paul Thomas was posting IRS information
(IRS DATA BOOK for 2000, released September 26, 2001)
on IRS's cost of receiving and recording our tax payments. Sounds
as if IRS is after a bigger cut, but that is not the question.
The two basic questions I have are: 1) do you buy the 3.9 cents per dollar
cost-to-collect claimed by IRS?
2) Does GAO publish numbers for this?
More specific questions would be:
Does the 3.9 cent figure include the costs of TIGTA and other Treasury
operations that are dedicated to IRS?
Does the 3.9 cent figure include all of the money paid out each year
to IRS and ex-IRS people in pensions and other benefits, including
vacations and sick leave?
Does the 3.9 cent figure include the amortized costs of facilities and
all capital equipment and software, including both computer systems in
use and those that were purchased for IRS but never made functional?
Does the 3.9 cent figure include the cost of the Taxpayer Advocates
Office?
Does the 3.9 cent figure really cover all expenses related to IRS, or is it
just a convenient subset of real costs to make it appear that the cost of
IRS receiving tax payments based on voluntarily information and payments are
within some range of reason?
Why isn't GAO making such determinations of cost, rather than IRS????
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Thomas
> The two basic questions I have are:
> 1) do you buy the 3.9 cents per dollar
> cost-to-collect claimed by IRS?
Well you caught us Andy. Boy what a sleuth you are. It actually costs the
government $4.23 to collect each tax dollar.
You really are a moron.
Frank Keiser
I don't know where you get your figures you must have a pipeline to
Treasury. True, the Service claims it costs $0.0039 to collect each $1
(which if Andy had any math background he would know is .39% or less than
4/10ths of 1% and not 3.9%), but as you point out the real cost is $4.23
per $1 collected. However, you once again play fast and loose by failing to
point out that the Service makes up the difference on volume!
AK
IRS?
From good ol' Paul Thomas:
<<Well you caught us Andy. Boy what a sleuth you are. It actually costs the
government $4.23 to collect each tax dollar. You really are a moron.>>
Paul, Paul. Just take a couple of stiff ones, and the world will look much
better - at least it will for a few hours, before reality sets in on you again.
But you and Francy stay away from that white powdered stuff now. These days you
cannot trust what that white stuff is. Hear?
Frank Keiser
You'll have to excuse Paul when he gets upset with you. You see Paul problem
is that you have him completely fooled i.e., he actually believes that when
you post something you actually believe it's correct. I know that a tax
expert such as yourself is only making preposterous statements just to pull
his leg .
Paul A. Thomas
> Paul, Paul. Just take a couple of stiff ones,
> and the world will look much better - at least
> it will for a few hours, before reality sets in on you again.
This from the voice of experience?
AK
> Paul, Paul. Just take a couple of stiff ones,
> and the world will look much better - at least
> it will for a few hours, before reality sets in on you again.
PT>This from the voice of experience?
Yep, I have met your type before. I guess I should feel sorry
for you, but as you can guess - it is difficult.
Now, back to the subject - -
The 39-cent per dollar received claim from IRS:
Why don't such figures come from GAO, instead of IRS?
Does the 39 cent figure include the costs of TIGTA and other Treasury
operations that are dedicated to IRS?
Does the 39 cent figure include all of the money paid out each year
to IRS and ex-IRS people in pensions and other benefits, including
vacations and sick leave?
Does the 39 cent figure include the amortized costs of facilities and
all capital equipment and software, including both computer systems in
use and those that were purchased for IRS but never made functional?
Does the 39 cent figure include the cost of the Taxpayer Advocates
Office?
Does the 39 cent figure really cover all expenses related to IRS, or is it
just a convenient subset of real costs to make it appear that the cost of
IRS receiving tax payments based on voluntarily information and payments are
within some range of reason?
Again - why isn't GAO making such determinations????
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Keiser
> Now, back to the subject - -
> The 39-cent per dollar received claim from IRS:
It's .39 cents per dollar - do you have a math block?
> Why don't such figures come from GAO, instead of IRS?
Probably because the math is so elementary: Divide the IRS's budget by the
total revenue collected, or 8.5 billion dollars (the approximate IRS budget
for the year reported) divided by approximately 2.2 trillion dollars
collected
> Does the 39 cent figure include the costs of TIGTA and other Treasury
> operations that are dedicated to IRS?
First it's .39 cents. And no it doesn't include TIGTA or Treasury oversight
costs but say these add another billion dollars (which is grossly high)
you're up to .43 cents per dollar collected.
> Does the 39 cent figure include all of the money paid out each year
> to IRS and ex-IRS people in pensions and other benefits, including
> vacations and sick leave?
First it's .39 cents and yes it does.
> Does the 39 cent figure include the amortized costs of facilities and
> all capital equipment and software, including both computer systems in
> use and those that were purchased for IRS but never made functional?
First it's .39 cents and yes it does.
> Does the 39 cent figure include the cost of the Taxpayer Advocates
> Office?
First it's .39 cents and yes it does.
> Does the 39 cent figure really cover all expenses related to IRS, or is it
> just a convenient subset of real costs to make it appear that the cost of
> IRS receiving tax payments based on voluntarily information and payments
are
> within some range of reason?
First it's .39 cents and yes it does.
> Again - why isn't GAO making such determinations????
GAO does audit the IRS books.
> End the massive abuses of 26 USC section 6103 - written to protect
taxpayers,
> not hide IRS misconduct. Remove from our government those IRS 'Disclosure
> Officers' who obstruct justice, rather that protect taxpayer privacy.
> Reform IRS! AK
End the massive stupidity of Andy!
Paul Thomas
> AK <wz8a@commie> wrote
> > Paul, Paul. Just take a couple of stiff ones,
> > and the world will look much better - at least
> > it will for a few hours, before reality sets in on you again.
>
> PT>This from the voice of experience?
>
> Yep,
The sot speaks.....Just as expected.
easy2000
<<SNIP>>
>
> So, how about another question, Bob? Paul Thomas was posting IRS information
> (IRS DATA BOOK for 2000, released September 26, 2001)
> on IRS's cost of receiving and recording our tax payments. Sounds
> as if IRS is after a bigger cut, but that is not the question.
>
Andy, I don't think Bobby wants to play with you anymore.
> The two basic questions I have are: 1) do you buy the 3.9 cents per dollar
> cost-to-collect claimed by IRS?
>
As as been pointed out, math-challenged-boy, it is less than 4 tenths of
a cent per dollar, nor 4 cents per dollar.
easy2000
AK
>The sot speaks.....Just as expected.
Paul, it sounds as if you have been chomping on some of those sick-puppy
cookies that Francy enjoys so much.
AK
>Andy, I don't think Bobby wants to play with you anymore.
So even EASY has chimed in. The 3 stooges are all represented now. Such a
charming group of IRS apologists.
What was the question? It had to do with an IRS report that
claimed the cost of collecting (actually receiving, recording,
and banking) our tax money was 0.39 percent for the tax year
2000. Paul Thomas pointed out that that cost was down from
0.43 percent in 1999.
Now I had some questions - never answered by the stooges -
about the 0.39 percent. Was that the total cost? And since IRS
has been known to cook their books, why was such a
report not coming from GAO - a much more credible source?
OK - I finally looked up the report, and question one was
clearly answered: NO - the 39 cents per 100 dollars was for
salary and "actual operating costs", which was not defined
well. Clearly, the cost amounts did not include facilities
overhead, computers, software, posh training sessions in the
mountains, or any of the many other costs which can double
or triple the operating costs of a business. Did they leave out
the cost of their TIGTA white-wash machine and the
Taxpayer Advocate office? Most likely, but the report did not
say.
So what WAS the cost/per dollar of tax to place our tax money
in the bank (hope it was not Mellon)? We have no idea from that
report. Did they reduce the reported cost of collection from
.43 percent to .39 percent by simply excluding some Treasury
expenditures that really went to IRS? No way of knowing.
Would GAO put out such useless information? Probably not,
but then that is most likely why IRS wrote the report and
GAO did not.
One other piece of data in that report: The operating costs of
the National Office were 6.3 percent of IRS’s budget in 1971,
and now National gets 8.2 percent of the budget. The monster
in Washington is growing faster than in the field.
Frank Keiser
ability to comprehend.
AK
>First it's .39 cents. And no it doesn't include TIGTA or Treasury oversight
First, Table 30 of the IRS Data Book 2000 claims the "Cost of collecting $100"
is "0.39". Nothing in there, including the notes, makes mention of "cents",
Francy. However, in engineering school they always claimed the .39 dollars
could be called 39 cents. Is it different at Maryland schools and on Maryland
CPA exams? Second, if the TIGTA whitewash operations are left out, what other
things were dropped out to help (cook) the figures? Obviously, the billoions of
dollars spent on computers, software, buildings, security and other things
directly required for IRS to do their work (in theory, collecting taxes) are
all a part of the annual cost of getting and banking tax money. How much did
IRS collect from taxpayers to generate this useless table? AK
-----------------------------------------------------------
easy2000
<<SNIP>>
Two questions, Andy. Have you yet figured out that $0.39 per $100 is the
same as .39 cents per $1 is the same as .39%? If yes, how long did it
take you to figure it out?
easy2000
Frank Keiser
I'm sure you're trying to make a point when you say, "Obviously, the
billoions (sic) of dollars spent on computers, software, buildings, security
and other things directly required for IRS to do their work (in theory,
collecting taxes) are all a part of the annual cost of getting and banking
tax money." I'm not sure what it the point is, but I'm sure you're trying
to make one. (Hell, what I'm not sure of is how much a "billoion" (sic)
dollars is.) Those costs are included in the Service's operating costs.
As I've previously pointed out, the figure .39% or 39 cents per 100 dollars
is merely a ratio of the Service's budget divided by all the revenue
collected by the Service. As for the cost of coming up with figure, since
both those numbers are already know, it should not have cost the Service
anything to derive (Unless, of course, they're as math challenged you).
Finally, in some respects I agree with the point that the .39% figure is
meaningless. First assume the IRS budget was 8.5 billion and that it
collected 2.1 trillion dollars (as I pointed out earlier 8.5 billion divided
by 2.1 trillion approximates .39%). Now, suppose that the Service's budget
were cut in half and collections were also halved - The Government would
have 'saved' roughly 4.25 billion on the Service's budget and lost 1.05
trillion in collections, yet the .39% rate would have remained the same. Or
suppose the Service's budget were doubled (17 billion) and collections
increased by 100 billion dollars (to 2.2 trillion) i.e., the government
spent an additional 8.5 billion to collect an addition 100 billion. In this
instance, the cost would increase to approximately 77 cents per 100 dollars
(.77%) collected nearly doubling the old .39% rate.
My point is not to garner votes for more or less spending on the Service -
that is a political question on which reasonable minds can differ - my point
was to point out that you are a boob. But then your own posts make that
abundantly clear.
AK
>Two questions, Andy. Have you yet figured out that $0.39 per $100 is the same
as .39 cents per $1 is the same as .39%?
Yes
>If yes, how long did it take you to figure it out?
Well, it took some time the way you and Francy went about stating it.
Admittedly, you did a better job of explaining what IRS meant in their Table 30
than IRS did. Of course, the .39 - whatever it is a fraction of - is a totally
meaningless number and its generation is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money.
But hey, use that tax money wisely and IRS might not get as much next year.
Right? Waste makes for bigger budgets next time around.
Now EASY, child - you seem to know all about Treasury things. Why didn't you
tell me about URL http://www.gao.gov and "Internal Revenue Service: Progress
Made, but Further Actions Needed to Improve Financial Management" GAO-02-35,
October 25, 2001. Francy told me all about it, and boy is that some good
reading.
Here was one of many gems: "IRS disagreed that we (GAO) should include its
failure to properly record adjustments to obligations as a material weakness.
IRS also requested that we reconsider our
recommendations that it include in its systems modernization blueprint
the capability to differentiate between valid and invalid adjustments to
prior-year obligations. IRS stated that the issue stemmed from our and its
different interpretations of the definition of upward and downward
adjustments."
I think IRS SHOULD be incensed by GAO’s refusal to accept IRS’s
interpretation of things. Heck, IRS can take any law Congress throws at
them and "interpret" it into anything IRS wants the law to mean. Why should GAO
expect better
treatment than Congress?
------------------------------------
Better yet: "IRS disagreed with our conclusions regarding the timeliness of
IRS’ recording of obligations. IRS believed that the 2 instances we cited of
IRS’ failure to timely record obligations were isolated and thus did not
constitute a material weakness in controls over appropriated funds. The 2
instances cited in our report were ILLUSTRATIVE examples of IRS’ failure to
record obligations before goods and services were received, and did not
represent the total number of errors found in our testing. In fact, we found 10
instances in which IRS failed to record obligations before goods and services
were received. These exceptions were brought to the attention of IRS staff and
management, in writing, throughout the audit. The 10 instances together
represent more than isolated instances of IRS’ not recording obligations
before goods and services are received."
Sooo - I am not the only one having trouble with IRS honestly addressing issues
and telling the truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
easy2000
>
> >From: easy2000
> >Two questions, Andy. Have you yet figured out that $0.39 per $100 is the same
> as .39 cents per $1 is the same as .39%?
>
> Yes
>
> >If yes, how long did it take you to figure it out?
>
> Well, it took some time the way you and Francy went about stating it.
> Admittedly, you did a better job of explaining what IRS meant in their Table 30
> than IRS did. Of course, the .39 - whatever it is a fraction of - is a totally
The IRS, or anyone else, shouldn't have to explain what is meant by the
use of standard math notations such as per cent signs. It is not the
IRS's fault that you didn't understand.
<<SNIP>>
>
> Now EASY, child - you seem to know all about Treasury things. Why didn't you
> tell me about URL http://www.gao.gov and "Internal Revenue Service: Progress
> Made, but Further Actions Needed to Improve Financial Management" GAO-02-35,
> October 25, 2001. Francy told me all about it, and boy is that some good
> reading.
>
If I had come across it first, I likely would not have mentioned it to
you because of your demonstrated lack of interest in facts.
>Here was one of many gems: ....
You demonstrate again that your interest is not in facts but in "gems"
you can use to advance your obsession. Facts that do not support your
view, or cannot be twisted out of shape to appear to support your view,
would never be described as "gems" by you.
easy2000
Paul Thomas
> >From: easy2000
> >Two questions, Andy. Have you yet figured out that $0.39 per $100 is the
same
> as .39 cents per $1 is the same as .39%?
>
> Yes
>
> >If yes, how long did it take you to figure it out?
>
> Well, it took some time the way you and Francy went about stating it.
> Admittedly, you did a better job of explaining what IRS meant in their
Table 30
> than IRS did. Of course, the .39 - whatever it is a fraction of - is a
totally
> meaningless number and its generation is a tremendous waste of taxpayer
money.
My oh my.....Andy, just because it took you almost two weeks to crank out
that number, it takes most people about 10 seconds on a calculator, and
thats if they have to turn it on first. So, without getting in to "new
math" with you, if the guy that calculated that number (regardless of how
useful you think it is) makes $60,000 a year, and receives another $40,000
in benefits and miscellaneous expenses to the government (Note this equals
$100,000). And this guy spent a grand total of 10 seconds to run the
calculations, then based on the union average of a 30 hour work week, this
cost a grand total of about $11.
Frankly its the best $11 the government has spent. In fact, I'm sending in
an extra $11 so they can publish yet another number that will bedazzle you
and entertain us as we watch you flounder about trying to decipher what it
means.
It is amazing how easy it is to yank your chain and see you dance.
AK
>Organization: Anti-Scammer & Anti-Tax Protester
Anti-scammer? Have you examined how IRS tries to collect some taxes that are
not taxes by any laws of Congress?? You promote the protester movement with
your knee-jerk (or just jerk) defense of a government organization the believes
that Congressional and Constitutional laws were only meant for others.
>The IRS, or anyone else, shouldn't have to explain what is meant...
That is right - IRS does not believe it needs to explain anything. Sad, very
sad when you consider who is paying their way.
>If I had come across it first, I likely would not have mentioned it to
you because of your demonstrated lack of interest in facts.
Because of what? Have you gotten into some of Francy's potions?
>Facts that do not support your view, or cannot be twisted out of shape to
appear to support your view, would never be described as "gems" by you.
OK Easy, let us not call them "gems"; let's just call them facts. The "Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation" section of GAO-02-35 (pp. 58-62) clearly
delineates the arrogance and mindless brass of an IRS that challenges GAO on
the way to keep records. No bureaucracy, except IRS, would tell GAO how to
properly record acquisitions and expenses. The good news is that GAO has some
true leverage (via Congress) to influence IRS. For taxpayers, who run into the
same mindless bureaucrats, there is little to do but lump it or refuse to pay
taxes in protest. If the Justice Department would take cases of criminal
misconduct against IRS, the taxpayer might have some leverage to stop IRS's
refusal to conduct itself as a lawful and professional organization.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
easy2000
>
> >From: easy2000
> >Organization: Anti-Scammer & Anti-Tax Protester
>
> Anti-scammer? Have you examined how IRS tries to collect some taxes that are
> not taxes by any laws of Congress?? You promote the protester movement with
> your knee-jerk (or just jerk) defense of a government organization the believes
> that Congressional and Constitutional laws were only meant for others.
>
> >The IRS, or anyone else, shouldn't have to explain what is meant...
>
> That is right - IRS does not believe it needs to explain anything. Sad, very
> sad when you consider who is paying their way.
>
If you don't understand percentages, it is not the IRS's job to help up
make up your deficiency in that area.
> >If I had come across it first, I likely would not have mentioned it to
>
> OK Easy, let us not call them "gems"; let's just call them facts.
I never suggested they were not facts. I said the only facts you call
gems are ones that support (or can be twisted so they appear to support)
your obsessive compulsion.
easy2000
AK
> I said the only facts you call gems are ones that support (or can be twisted
so they appear to support) your obsessive compulsion.
Oh gosh, you are into psycho babble again. GAO said it very well in their
02-35 report: "IRS' approach does not address the underlying financial
management and operation issues that adversely affect IRS' ability to
effectively fulfill its responsibilities as the nation's tax collector."
Sometimes I wonder if IRS even understands that their job is to be "the
nation's tax collector". They seem to want to vendor that job out and play
games with people.
Paul Thomas
their
> 02-35 report: "IRS' approach does not address the underlying financial
> management and operation issues that adversely affect IRS' ability to
> effectively fulfill its responsibilities as the nation's tax collector."
I haven't seen a set of financial statements that would "address the
underlying financial management and operation issues" of any company. The
fact that GAO said in short, 'hey they (the IRS) got a long way to go'
doesn't surprise me, and in fact, it's something that will be said for
years to come.
Thank God that you're not in charge of the budget issues for IRS.
Otherwise it'll never get fixed.
AK
<<The fact that GAO said in short, 'hey they (the IRS) got a long way to go'
doesn't surprise me, and in fact, it's something that will be said for years to
come.>>
And just how many years has GAO been saying that, and IRS has been doing very
little but making excuses and denying what GAO has been telling them?
Paul Thomas
> >From: "Paul Thomas"
>
> <<The fact that GAO said in short, 'hey they (the IRS) got a long way to
go'
> doesn't surprise me, and in fact, it's something that will be said for
years to
> come.>>
>
> And just how many years has GAO been saying that,
Probably since 1913.
> and IRS has been doing very little but making excuses
> and denying what GAO has been telling them?
When I counsel clients with tax problems, I liken the IRS to a freight
train leaving the station. You can out run them for only so long, and then
they catch up to you and mow you down. In some cases, where you settle
with them and pay the tax, interest and penalty, that freight train hasn't
yet had time to stop, and in that light may still continue to go after the
person or business for a number of weeks and or months.
But for your sake I'll liken the IRS to a large ship, with a tiny rudder.
It doesn't change at first, but slowly, over time and distance the ship
will turn and change course.
Changes have been made, and changes still need to be made. There is hope
for the IRS and the weary taxpayers and tax practitioners. But you? For
you there isn't any hope.
> End the massive abuses of 26 USC section 6103
Don't ask for something you aren't entitled to and you never, ever run into
6103.
Frank Keiser
And now you can't even read GAO reports! Must be so, for if you had read the
report you would have found that GAO first began its audits of the Service
in 1992.
AK
6103
PT>Don't ask for something you aren't entitled to and you never, ever run
into 6103.
Gee, Paul. That was a pretty good post you made there - until you slipped
back to your old ways at the end. No doubt, IRS treats a savvy old tax pro
better than a general peasant taxpayer when it comes to their schemes and
tricks in avoiding direct issues that might incriminate them. But rest assured
that if you start asking IRS about THEIR basis for crazy "interpretations"
of the law - such as "exactly what part of what law are you using for this
interpretation?" - you could also discover that your friendly IRS "disclosure
officer" will pull the old 6103 card and claim they cannot "disclose" such
protected information. But as long as you tax pros dance around IRS, their
standard bag of tricks will not go away. Of course, that means more clients
for you, so why am I attempting to tell you this? So, let it continue. Whenever
IRS wants to keep their crooked deals secret, they just slip some section
6110 info into something with section 6103 info in it, and then they can
"tell" you (the one not privy to the basis of the conspiratorial act) what
you must do, but refuse to tell you why or exactly how the interpretation
was worded, or who the IRS nut was that generated it. You should not be calling
these people dumb, Paul. If they were dumb, they would be in jail. The dumb
ones are the lawmakers that let IRS get away with it.
AK
>And now you can't even read GAO reports! Must be so, for if you had read the
report you would have found that GAO first began its audits of the Service
in 1992.
So poor ol' IRS has not even had a full decade to get around to responding.
Guess that explains everything.
Frank Keiser
You still don't even understand what your reading and you haven't the
foggiest on how an audit is conducted by GAO. You don't know about the
engagement letter, the opion, or the post audit follow-up.
You were looking post audit follow-up what in private industry would be
equivalent to a management letter. If you have trouble with the concept,
look at whom the damn thing is addressed to - the Commissioner of the
Internal Revenue Service! Look at the purpose of why it was being written.
All of this information is freely available on GAO's web site. But of course
it is there for people who actually want to gain some knowledge; I guess
that leaves you out.
AK
Fancy: It really does not matter if GAO is writing an audit follow-up or a
general complaint to Congress. It does not matter who it is to. What does
matter is that Jeffrey Steinhoff, GAO Managing Director of Financial Management
and Assurance, is expressing the same frustration with the arrogant and
hardheaded management at IRS that frustrates almost everyone who expects some
semblance of a professional organization in an agency of such importance and
with so much power. IRS has a hearing problem, just as severe as yours. When it
is GAO vs. IRS it is fun to watch, because there is some balance of power
between the two government functions. When it is IRS with its billions of
taxpayer dollars against a taxpayer who must do productive work to simply earn
enough to live - the fight is not fair. Until the Justice Department is allowed
by Congress to send those over-the-line IRS people to jail when they break laws
to ruthlessly collect taxes, there is nothing to equalize the power of IRS or
bring justice to the public that pays this organization. It is a sad thing that
in most cases, the last thing IRS wants is a fair hearing of the facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
Paul Thomas
> >From: "Paul Thomas" in ref to:
> PT>Don't ask for something you aren't entitled to and you never, ever run
You can word it any way you like silly boy, but you were asking for facts
and information about your ex-employer and their dealings with the IRS.
You do not have privilege to that information, just as I don't have
privilege to information about people who aren't my clients, NOR will the
IRS tell me about returns I prepared and my client filed (Unless I have a
valid Power of Attorney, and until last year the "check the box" for the
year in question), NOR about my client for prior years unless said POA is
filed, and/or the client is sitting right their in my office and verbally
gives them their permission.
So. No one has ever, ever claimed 6103 to keep from telling me about
information I've needed if I have a valid POA for that client. And they
have never, ever claimed 6103 to keep from telling me information about my
own return.
So from years and years of experience, I can only conclude that you were
asking about facts and circumstances that related to the returns and
filings of your ex-employer. Something you had no right to get.
Now, this terrible and tragic event in your life happened, what was it?, a
decade ago, and has been successfully resolved in your favor. The reason
you don't rant on about your ex-employer and their involvement in this, is
they'll probably sue your ass off, and you know the IRS won't do anything.
So. Assuming that you are older than 12, it's high time you grow up, and
move on to more recent events, before you sit back one day in the nursing
home and wonder why the hell you bothered to hate all these years.
Frank Keiser
> Fancy: It really does not matter if GAO is writing an audit follow-up or a
> general complaint to Congress. It does not matter who it is to.
To you it does not matter why and to whom the GAO's letter was addressed, I
expected at much from someone who has never shown an inkling of tax
knowledge, but it does matter to people who know something of accounting.
And now that you're in agreement with GAO findings, I take it your also in
agreement with "Tax Administration: Status of IRS' Efforts to Develop
Measures of Voluntary Compliance". GAO-01-535 June 18, 2001. Let me know if
you need help finding it.
AK
>And Andy wrote
>> Fancy: It really does not matter if GAO is writing an audit follow-up or a
general complaint to Congress. It does not matter who it is to.
And Andy also wrote:
When it is IRS with its billions of taxpayer dollars against a taxpayer who
must do productive work to simply earn enough to live - the fight is not fair.
Until the Justice Department is allowed by Congress to send those over-the-line
IRS people to jail when they break laws to ruthlessly collect taxes, there is
nothing to equalize the power of IRS or bring justice to the public that pays
this organization. It is a sad thing that in most cases, the last thing IRS
wants is a fair hearing of the facts.
------------------------------------
End the massive abuses of 26 USC section 6103 - written to protect taxpayers,
AK
>You can word it any way you like silly boy, but you were asking for facts and
information about your ex-employer and their dealings with the IRS.
Tell me oh nut case, just why was I getting the bill if the information was
about my ex-employer? It cannot be "private" if I get their bill sonny boy.
>You do not have privilege to that information,
I have every privilege to information that puts a tax obligation at my
doorstep!
> I don't have privilege to information about people who aren't my clients
Then I trust you do not send them 1099s, Paul. Do you?
>So from years and years of experience, I can only conclude that you were
asking about facts and circumstances that related to the returns and filings of
your ex-employer.
Your too many years of experience do not serve you well, Paul.
> Something you had no right to get.
Anyone who sends me a bill had better be able to back it up, or they do not get
paid. And they had darn well not ever try to just take it. They were covering
up and lying to themselves -- and getting real close to the line. Not a good
thing for them, or me. I HAD EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THAT BILL WAS BASED ON.
NOW, AND FOREVER MORE!
>Now, this terrible and tragic event in your life happened, what was it?, a
decade ago,
I thought you were bragging you could count. My form 8275, refusing to pay tax
on the 1099R amount for tax year 1996, was mailed in April of 1997.. April 22,
1999, Richard Daly at IRS (id 50-1697) sent me a corrected 1099R for 1996
showing that there never was any distribution. Next April 22 will mark three
years since that milestone. M.r Daly took responsibility (on behalf of IRS)
for the 1996 1099R in his 1999 letter. IRS has never divulged what they based
that original and fraudulent 1099R on. Based on IRS's admission, it is fair to
say the employer was just being "a good German soldier" in sending out that
fraudulent document; and IRS had already admitted they always knew there was
never any real distribution. So it has been three years, Paul. And it will be
more than a decade in seven more years. And until something changes at IRS - I
will still in there yelling. So get used to it.
>The reason you don't rant on about your ex-employer and their involvement in
this, is they'll probably sue your ass off,
I would love to see them try.
>and you know the IRS won't do anything.
And that is false, also. IRS is a very dangerous organization. They scare me,
and they scare my wife. If they do come after me, I am prepared to spend
whatever it takes to fight them -- and hopefull, the media may find my IRS
problems of interest at that point. Also, my congressman lives and works just a
few blocks away (when not in DC). He would get mighty tired of seeing me, if
the IRS folk get their daggers out.
>Assuming that you are older than 12, it's high time you grow up,
Funny, Pual. Emotionally, I would figure you for much less maturity than 12.
>before you sit back one day in the nursing home and wonder why the hell you
bothered to hate all these years.
It's not hate, Paul - just fixing a problem. However long it may take, just
fixing a problem. That is all.
---------------------------------------------------
Frank Keiser
It must be true that with age your memory has grown shorter. On several
occasions it has been pointed out that taxpayers who are successful in
litigation with the Service are entitle to litigation costs unless the
Service can demonstrate its position was substantially justified. And as for
the "Justice Department [being] allowed by Congress to send those
over-the-line IRS people to jail when they break laws to ruthlessly collect
taxes"; well are there not criminal statutes? In addition to normal
criminal statutes that all government employees are subject to; the Service
has been singled out with additional statutes (Need I remind you of section
1203(b) of RRA '98).
Seems that this, like most of your posts, "is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
Macbeth. Act v. Sc. 5.
Paul Thomas
> >From: "Paul Thomas"
>
> >You can word it any way you like silly boy, but you were asking for
facts and
> information about your ex-employer and their dealings with the IRS.
>
> Tell me oh nut case, just why was I getting the bill if the information
was
> about my ex-employer? It cannot be "private" if I get their bill sonny
boy.
Didn't you get a Form 1099-R from your ex-employer?
Answer: YES
Then why the hell should the IRS be so inclined to tell you anything about
your ex-employers accounting methods?
> >You do not have privilege to that information,
>
> I have every privilege to information that puts a tax obligation at my
> doorstep!
No you really don't. At least not from the IRS. You see little man, that
lays at the feet of your ex-employer to explain how and why they came up
with the number they did.
> > I don't have privilege to information about people who aren't my
clients
>
> Then I trust you do not send them 1099s, Paul. Do you?
Who? I don't send 1099's to the IRS, and if I have sent one to a client,
they had better ask me about it and not the IRS, because you see little
man, the IRS hasn't a clue as to why it was issued, or how I calculated the
number. In fact, Section 6103 prohibits the IRS from discussing me or my
tax filings or anything else about me to you or anyone else.
> Anyone who sends me a bill had better be able to back it up, or they do
not get
> paid. And they had darn well not ever try to just take it. They were
covering
> up and lying to themselves -- and getting real close to the line. Not a
good
> thing for them, or me. I HAD EVERY RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THAT BILL WAS BASED
ON.
> NOW, AND FOREVER MORE!
Silly BOY.
It was based on a Form 1099R from your former employer.
It's plain to see that your beef (if there really was one) is with your
former employer. It's a sad sad day that you had to involve someone else
in the matter of Andy -v- former employer. It's a sad sad century in which
you have to bitch that the third party (ie: the IRS) wouldn't help you in
your quest against your former employer. I'm surprised that the Ohio State
Patrol isn't at fault for their lack of caring attitude to "get these
thieves".
GROW UP NOW.
Paul Thomas
> Until the Justice Department is allowed by Congress to send those
over-the-line
> IRS people to jail when they break laws to ruthlessly collect taxes,
there is
> nothing to equalize the power of IRS or bring justice to the public that
pays
> this organization.
And there have been many many IRS employees that have been fired, arrested,
and convicted of wrong-doing over the years. The fact that you don't care
to notice those events shouldn't be our fault.
AK
>Didn't you get a Form 1099-R from your ex-employer?
As IRS eventually admitted, the first 1099-R was sent by the ex-employer at
IRS's direction. The "corrected" 1099-R was sent by IRS.
>Then why the hell should the IRS be so inclined to tell you anything about
your ex-employers accounting methods?
I had several blunt discussions with X-Company's holding-corp lawyer in LA.
How do think I finally got a copy of the conspiratorial VCR that IRS insisted
had to include non-vested pension plan participants? Getting a copy of the VCR
also included correspondence with several of the holding corporation's
directors. You know the game well, don't you Paul? Send me to the to the
ex-employer. They send me to IRS. Neither says nuttin. And when some of truth
starts to come out from the ex-employer, IRS uses their good friend, Section
6103. But you think that's just fine, don't you? A little obstruction for the
good of IRS is just the end (a crooked IRS) justifying the means. You like
that, don't you?
> Section 6103 prohibits IRS from discussing me or my tax filings or anything
else about me to you or anyone else.
That is just the way it should be, Paul. Right up until you or IRS start
sending me 1099-Rs for money that went to you. Then it is no longer YOUR tax
filings.
> I'm surprised that the Ohio State Patrol isn't at fault for their lack of
caring attitude to "get these thieves".
I get along just fine with the police, Paul. It is just crooks that I have
problems with. The last time I talked with the Ohio State Patrol, it was to
compliment them on their patrolling of I75 at rush hour. They seemed to like
that. (Besides, it's the US attorney's job to get thieves in the federal
bureaucracy.)
Now you just take a long nap, Paul. The world will seem better when you get
over your headache.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK
>And there have been many many IRS employees that have been fired, arrested,
and convicted of wrong-doing over the years. The fact that you don't care
to notice those events shouldn't be our fault.
The last time I heard NTEU's Kelly asked about 1203 firings within the year,
she said it was "less than 100". Rossotti then said she knew darn well it was
17 total, of which only a minority of that number were fired because of the
"ten deady sins". Of course some of those 8 or less, lost to 1202 may have been
half-times (6 months working for IRS, 6 months vacationing on state
unemployment benefits). In other words, the way IRS counts people, there may
have only been 4 IRS-count people terminated in one year due to "the sins". But
Kelly would like folks to think the numer was close to 100. Great example she
is. So we know what "less than a hundred" means from the IRS union chief.
Wonder how many "many many" is from Paul Thomas? (Admittedly, Treasury has no
trouble kicking out employees who have their fingers in Treasury's till, but
they don't see a little taxpayer abuse as anything serious - unless the media
gets on it.)
Section 1203 of the 1998, referred to as the "Ten Deadly Sins" is as follows:
MANDATORY EMPLOYEE TERMINATIONS
The Senate amendment requires the IRS to terminate an employee for certain
proven
violations committed by the employee in connection with the performance of
official
duties. The violations include:
(1) failure to obtain the required approval signatures on documents
authorizing the
seizure of a taxpayer's home, personal belongings, or business assets;
(2) providing a false statement under oath material to a matter involving a
taxpayer;
(3) falsifying or destroying documents to avoid uncovering mistakes made by
the
employee with respect to a matter involving a taxpayer;
(4) assault or battery on a taxpayer or other IRS employee;
(5) violation of the civil rights of a taxpayer or other IRS employee;
(6) violations of the Internal Revenue Code, Treasury Regulations, or
policies of the IRS
(including the Internal Revenue Manual) for the purpose of retaliating or
harassing a
taxpayer or other IRS employee;
(7) willful misuse of section 6103 for the purpose of concealing data from a
Congressional inquiry;
(8) willful failure to file any tax return required under the Code on or
before the due date
(including extensions) unless failure is due to reasonable cause;
(9) willful understatement of Federal tax liability, unless such
understatement is due to
reasonable cause; and
(10) threatening to audit a taxpayer for the purpose of extracting personal
gain or
benefit.
Frank Keiser
Internal Revenue Service in a crime of such proportions its hard to imagine.
Never since the creation of the world, till now, has such an injustice been
does as was done to Andy by the IRS.
You know Andy, your picture probably appears in the dictionary under the
word hyperbole.
Frank Keiser
Ah yes section 1203(b) and the 10 'deadly sins'; all very justified, let's
take one and point out how right you are. Say "(9) willful understatement of
Federal tax liability, unless such understatement is due to reasonable
cause"
Take, for instance, Service folks who receive a Form 1099 and don't report
the amount shown thereon, they should be fired; after all it was a willful
understatement. To save their jobs they should required to prove they never
received the income or that the payer made an error. I mean why should the
IRS be required to show that its employees received the income that was
reported to the Service as having been paid to them? Oops maybe that was
poor example -isn't that what you claimed happened to you? Well it's Service
employees, a different set of rules should apply to them then apply to
public at large.
The remarkable thing is you don't recognize the hypocrisy and irony in the
stuff you post.
AK
>You know Andy, your picture probably appears in the dictionary under the word
hyperbole.
You need to find a new word, Francy. Also, a productive job.
-------------------------------
AK
>The remarkable thing is you don't recognize the hypocrisy and irony in the
stuff you post.
No Francy. What you are attempting to say is that the rules should not apply to
IRS folk. Unfortunately, that's the way it works in too many cases.
Paul A. Thomas
AK mailto:wz...@aol.com> wrote
> the first 1099-R was sent by the ex-employer
I see. Case closed.
> And when some of truth
> starts to come out from the ex-employer
I see. So you have to believe the ex-employer said the "big bad bully" IRS
told them to prepare Forms 1099R's ??
You are an idiot.
And your ex-employer wasn't much smarter either.
In fact, I've decided that it's an even toss-up as to who came out better,
you because you left the company, or the company because you left.
So, as you admitted, YOUR EX-EMPLOYER sent you a 1099R, maybe with incorrect
numbers, maybe not. None the less, YOUR EX-EMPLOYER sent them to you and
filed a copy with the IRS as required by law. I still don't see why the
IRS should have gotten involved in that at all. Your primary and ONLY
recourse is through the EX-EMPLOYER in determining the numbers calculation.
To you Andy, it's all still a "conspiracy".
Paul A. Thomas
AK <wz...@aol.com>
> The last time I heard
You mean the last time you heard something that "fit" your conspiratorial
mentality.
> NTEU's Kelly asked about 1203 firings within the year,
> she said it was "less than 100".
See !!! You really don't have a clue as to the last FIVE years, do you?
Now Andrew, don't you think that IRS employees can and are fired for
infractions beyond Section 1203?
> Rossotti then said she knew darn well it was
> 17 total,
Rossotti said "darn"? Or are you paraphrasing to suit your dillusional
conspiracy theories again?
Frank Keiser
I merely point out what your posts have always expressed i.e., that you were
wrong by the Service and nothing can ever be done to make up for that wrong.
There was a cartoon out, about two years ago, in which a man, who obviously
works for the Service, says to a taxpayer, "Madam, if we refund all the
taxes you ever paid, declare that you will never owe taxes again, and
execute the Commissioner, would that be sufficient to satisfy you?". If it
were you he was talking to, your answer would probably be to complain about
the method of execution!
Frank Keiser
apply to all, plus the additional rules that apply to all government
employees, apply to them but they take issue with laws targeted at them
exclusively. We have had this debate before: numerous commentators have
pointed out that the provisions of section 1203 of RRA '98 are a cure in
search of a disease and that section 1203 has served as little more than
pandering by members of Congress in search of votes. Individuals such as
yourself have claimed that section 1203 was needed; then raised cries when
Service employees, in an abundance of caution, have conformed their actions
so there would be not even a hint of a section 1203 violation i.e., you want
it both ways shackled enforcement personnel who are paid less and do more.
When there have been findings of numerous instances of representatives and
taxpayers threatening Service employees with claimed section 1203
violations in order to secure a more favorable outcome to their cases, your
reply has always been "Whitewash!". Your view has always been that, to
paraphrase Will Rogers, 'You've never heard a bad word about the Service you
didn't like.'
And you? Heck you can't even reproduce the Act section properly:
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MISCONDUCT
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Subject to subsection (c), the Commissioner
of Internal Revenue shall terminate the employment of any employee of
the Internal Revenue Service if there is a final administrative or
judicial determination that such employee committed any act or
omission described under subsection (b) in the performance of the
employee's official duties. Such termination shall be a removal for
cause on charges of misconduct.
(b) ACTS OR OMISSIONS. -- The acts or omissions referred to
under subsection (a) are --
(1) willful failure to obtain the required approval
signatures on documents authorizing the seizure of a taxpayer's home,
personal belongings, or business assets;
(2) providing a false statement under oath with respect to a
material matter involving a taxpayer or taxpayer's representative;
(3) with respect to a taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or
other employee of the Internal Revenue Service, the violation of --
(A) any right under the Constitution of the United
States; or
(B) any civil right established under --
(i) title VI or VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
(ii) title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972;
(iii) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967;
(iv) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975;
(v) section 501 or 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973; or
(vi) title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990;
(4) falsifying or destroying documents to conceal mistakes
made by any employee with respect to a matter involving a taxpayer or
taxpayer representative;
(5) assault or battery on a taxpayer, taxpayer
representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service,
but only if there is a criminal conviction, or a final judgment by a
court in a civil case, with respect to the assault or battery;
(6) violations of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
Department of Treasury regulations, or policies of the Internal
Revenue Service (including the Internal Revenue Manual) for the
purpose of retaliating against, or harassing, a taxpayer, taxpayer
representative, or other employee of the Internal Revenue Service;
(7) willful misuse of the provisions of section 6103 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the purpose of concealing
information from a congressional inquiry,
(8) willful failure to file any return of tax required under
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on or before the date prescribed
therefor (including any extensions), unless such failure is due to
reasonable cause and not to willful neglect,
(9) willful understatement of Federal tax liability, unless
such understatement is due to reasonable cause and not to willful
neglect, and
AK
>Actually Andy, Service employees seem not so concerned that the rules that
apply to all, plus the additional rules that apply to all government employees,
apply to them but they take issue with laws targeted at them exclusively.
Francy - there is a reason why those rules were written JUST FOR IRS. And there
reason is not that the specified violations have never occurred! In fact, the
reason they were written JUST FOR IRS is because the problems have come up so
many times, and IRS never seems to learn. So Congress decided to spell it out,
load and clear, so even someone in the NTEU could understand it.
>When there have been findings of numerous instances of representatives and
taxpayers threatening Service employees with claimed section 1203 violations in
order to secure a more favorable outcome to their cases, your reply has always
been "Whitewash!".
Not only is that just another of your lies, but it does not even make sense.
The TIGTA whitwash business is pretending gross IRS abuses are not abuse. Of
you stooges are just as good as TIGTA - you never saw an abuse or violation of
the law complaint you could not trivialize.
>And you? Heck you can't even reproduce the Act section properly:
Well, Francy - maybe I did not copy the very latest, but I sure didn't make it
up. Does your version say something different from what I quoted? If not, just
what is your point little boy?
I am a bit surprised you are even posting. Seems like from Thanksgiving to
somewhere in mid-January, the real IRS folk all evaporate. I guess they go to
their favorite vacation spots and complain about how the private sector gets
paid so much more. Of course some of us in the real world only get one paid day
of holiday for Thanksgiving, and two for Christmas -- and we get fired if we
use sick leave for vacation, but then productivity counts when you are not in
government. So tell your friends to worry about how much I make, and I will
worry about how much paid time off they get. Seems fair.
AK
>Andy
>
>I merely point out what your posts have always expressed i.e., that you were
wrong by the Service and nothing can ever be done to make up for that wrong.
All you want to do is change subjects, Francy. "The Service" will never be a
service until they reform, you full well intend to see that that will not
happen. What a pathetic way to make a living.
Paul Thomas
> >From: "Francy Keiser"
> >Actually Andy, Service employees seem not so concerned that the rules
that
> apply to all, plus the additional rules that apply to all government
employees,
> apply to them but they take issue with laws targeted at them exclusively.
>
> Francy - there is a reason why those rules were written JUST FOR IRS. And
there
> reason is not that the specified violations have never occurred! In fact,
the
> reason they were written JUST FOR IRS is because the problems have come
up so
> many times, and IRS never seems to learn. So Congress decided to spell it
out,
> load and clear, so even someone in the NTEU could understand it.
So Andy, an employee of the Dept. of the Interior can substantially
understate their income, or not file tax returns for years and years, or be
abusive to the public (that they serve too), and have complaints filed
against them, yet they can't be fired on the spot? Isn't that
discriminatory? Are they not held to a higher standard than even Congress?
The same Congress that mandated those rules? Don't you see a problem with
that?
> >When there have been findings of numerous instances of representatives
and
> taxpayers threatening Service employees with claimed section 1203
violations in
> order to secure a more favorable outcome to their cases, your reply has
always
> been "Whitewash!".
>
> Not only is that just another of your lies,
It's true Andy. The fact that you haven't acknowledged the taxpayer abuses
of tax law and IRS policy just shows how blinded by your rage you really
are. (Go ahead, it's time for you to call me a commie of something.)
There have been numerous articles on that subject. You must have
overlooked them while salivating over that lady's book you so love to quote
from.
> but it does not even make sense.
What doesn't? That individuals come in all shapes and sizes? That
proportionally there are as many individuals abusing the system from the
outside as there are on the inside? That 'all' taxpayers are good as gold
and only the bad people work for the IRS? What is it that you smoke each
day?
> The TIGTA whitwash business is pretending gross IRS abuses are not abuse.
Of
> you stooges are just as good as TIGTA - you never saw an abuse or
violation of
> the law complaint you could not trivialize.
There are, and have been, and probably will be, problem employees, or more
to the point, employees that someone will have a problem with. Is it
serious enough to fire one each time I don't like the color of their tie,
or the smell of their breath? Should I file a complaint each time they
rule against my client, or get 'demanding' for the tax dollars that are
due?
That you want to trivialize the problems with the law that allows me or any
other taxpayer to hold that employees employment future solely in our
hands, that they can be fired more or less because "I" say they did this or
did that, or that they have no recourse in even defending themselves in
cases where the IRS themselves maybe misapplies an estimated tax payment,
or sends out an erroneous notice for a balance due shows just how stupidly
blind to reality and justice you are.
<Snip Andy's rantings>
Grow up boy.
Gray Shockley
(in message <20011125185507...@mb-mm.aol.com>):
> I am a bit surprised you are even posting. Seems like from Thanksgiving to
> somewhere in mid-January, the real IRS folk all evaporate. I guess they go to
> their favorite vacation spots and complain about how the private sector gets
> paid so much more. Of course some of us in the real world only get one paid
> day of holiday for Thanksgiving, and two for Christmas -- and we get fired if
we
> use sick leave for vacation, but then productivity counts when you are not in
> government. So tell your friends to worry about how much I make, and I will
> worry about how much paid time off they get. Seems fair.
--------------------------------------------------------
As one of those (albeit retired) government employees, I'd like to comment
that I always tried to get those days off for the GSers and contractors who
worked for me.
But I make no apologies for the "training holidays" I gave MY people on
Thanksgiving Friday and for the time between Christmas Eve and the day after
New Year's (hell with two days - more like 50% downtime for two weeks).
But if any of my people had tried to "use sick leave for vacation", that
person would still be in federal prison.
--------------------------------------------------------
And let's mention some of my Daddy's (a GS-15 for over 30 years and a PMO for
the Corps of Engineers) people:
About half a dozen of 'em - this was in - if I correctly recall - the 60's -
all of a sudden started quitting work at quitting time instead of working
until they finished whatever they were doing (usually a couple of hours after
quitting time).
Did they suddenly "see the light" - that they should "go to their favorite
vacation spots and complain about how the private sector gets paid so much
more"?
Well, uh, actually no. What these guys were doing was going home and going to
sleep and then sneaking into their building at midnight and working until 4am
because the only computer that was online at that time was "time-share" but
at these hours it worked in "real time".
And they'd be able to key-in their queries on their ASR-19's and - within a
matter of seconds/minutes instead of hours - get back their answers (Dad's
lab was "Mobility and Envirinmental Systems Laboratory").
This was the rule rather than the exception among those with whom I grew up.
[This was the Waterways Experiment Station, USArmy Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, United States of America.]
--------------------------------------------------------
You make the impression of being a "crybaby".
Those of my people who were crybabies got to hitchhike to wherever they
desired.
All I had to do was drop them off at a gate of my choice (or their escorts'
choice).
POOF! No more crybaby.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Trifle not in the affairs of Wizards, for you are crunchy
and taste good with ketchup."
Frank Keiser
"Francy - there is a reason why those rules were written JUST FOR IRS. And
there
reason is not that the specified violations have never occurred! In fact,
the
reason they were written JUST FOR IRS is because the problems have come up
so
many times, and IRS never seems to learn. So Congress decided to spell it
out,
load and clear, so even someone in the NTEU could understand it."
I suppose that it would be useless to post the reports of GAO investigations
that found the horrors of former Senator Roth's Committee were mostly
imaginary or the articles where TIGTA asked for enough personnel to do 5000
investigations. But then you ignore those reports then; why should there be
an difference now?
The Teeth in Tax Collection
The Washington Post Company
Saturday, April 22, 2000; Page A16
THE MEMBERS of Congress who assaulted and weakened the Internal Revenue
Service in 1998 continue to distance themselves from the consequences. The
IRS is doing less enforcing of the law, which means it's easier for tax
evaders to duck their share. Ah, but that's not what we had in mind, protest
the members who in that last election year used the IRS as a punching bag
and denounced it in part for precisely the enforcement vigor it now lacks.
That's the last thing these mostly law-and-order types--Senate Majority
Leader Trent Lott, Finance Committee Chairman William Roth, House Ways and
Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer--say they wanted. But in fact that's
what a lot of the rhetoric and the fund-raising letters sent out on the
strength of the legislation suggested that they did want. They found it
useful to portray the IRS as oppressive and a symbol of an overreaching
federal government. Now they flee from the results.
The latest evidence of the effect of the 1998 bill is a Syracuse University
report, using IRS data. The legislation helped produce a regime in which the
returns of those at the lowest income levels are audited more frequently
than those at the highest, where the big bucks are. The congressional
majority is offended by the fact that some very low-income taxpayers appear
to be claiming larger so-called earned-income tax credits--modest wage
supplements--than they may be entitled to. It has ordered the IRS to
intensify reviews of such claims. Fair enough, but meanwhile audits and
challenges of returns of higher- income taxpayers have declined sharply, in
part for lack of sufficient funds but also because in 1998 the agency was
basically told to lay off. The message to IRS agents was that they could
lose their jobs if they pressed resisting taxpayers too hard; they reacted
about as you might expect.
Finance Committee Chairman Roth, who led the assault on the IRS in 1997-98,
called the new statistics--the lower audit rates for high-income taxpayers
than for those at the lowest levels--"troubling." "Fair treatment of
taxpayers should and can go hand in hand with collecting the proper amount
of tax," he said. You bet.
A Weakened I.R.S. * The New York Times
The New York Times April 16, 2000, Sunday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section 4; Page 14; Column 1; Editorial Desk
LENGTH: 742 words
HEADLINE: A Weakened I.R.S.
BODY:
Years of pummeling by Congress have so weakened the Internal Revenue
Service -- eroding its budget, staff and spirit -- that the agency has
largely abandoned efforts to detect tax fraud among the rich and powerful,
or even among ordinary taxpayers. The threat that the agency will audit an
individual's tax form is shrinking toward zero. The odds that the I.R.S.,
having caught you in a mistake, will seize property or even levy a fine are
also plummeting. Even the threat that a diligent collection agent will
pressure people who owe back taxes is quickly disappearing.
Perversely, the agency's priorities have been so distorted by Congress that
it is now more apt to audit a poor person than a rich person, and a small
business than a large corporation. Nobody knows how much tax cheating is
going on because Congress has also eliminated the random audits once used to
estimate the extent of tax evasion. The sad result is that a tax system that
has long relied on Americans to calculate honestly how much they owe the
government -- and is the envy of other nations -- is at risk of being
subverted.
The source of the problem is Congress, which has slashed the agency's budget
by almost 30 percent since the 1980's. As a result, the number of I.R.S.
employees has dropped about 15 percent over the past seven years, even
though the number and the complexity of returns are rising quickly, in part
because soaring stock values and a fast-rising economy have generated many
more forms from many more high-income families. The agency's job has also
been made more difficult by an explosion of clever new tax dodges designed
by corporations -- a problem that has grown large enough to qualify,
according to Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, as the agency's primary
enforcement issue. Congress and the Clinton administration directed the
agency to spend a disproportionate share of its dwindling resources on
monitoring overpayment of tax credits to low-paid workers. It is true that
many recipients of the earned-income tax credit, out of confusion or malice,
claim more than they are truly owed. But that is hardly a central tax
collection issue. Meanwhile, Congress, fired up by anecdotal reports of
taxpayers being abused, passed a bill in 1998 that requires the agency to
fire agents who harass taxpayers. Enforcement of that provision has left
unclear the line between harassment and diligence, causing some agents to
say they have backed off from vigorously collecting taxes out of fear of
punishment.
The harm done by Congressional cutbacks and antagonism can be seen in data
to be posted today by researchers on a Syracuse University Web site, and
reported in today's Times. The poor are now more likely to be audited than
the rich. One in every 74 taxpayers reporting income below $25,000 and
filing an uncomplicated return was audited last year. By contrast, 1 in
every 87 taxpayers whose income was above $100,000 was audited. A dozen
years ago, one in every nine of those high-income taxpayers would have been
audited. The same skewed priorities have permeated business audits.
Proprietorships with small sales volume were audited more frequently than
those with high volume.
Audits of the self-employed with gross receipts over $100,000 were cut by
about 55 percent between 1988 and 1999. Only 1 in every 66 corporations was
audited last year, the lowest rate in 86 years.
Collection of delinquent taxes has also fallen precipitously. Levies on bank
accounts and other assets have fallen about 85 percent since 1992 and
seizures of property have fallen 98 percent, from 10,000 cases as recently
as 1997 to just 161 last year. The amount of money collected through
enforcement actions has fallen 13 percent since 1996.
The question arises whether the drop in enforcement effort has diminished
compliance. Compliance is hard to measure. Congress eliminated the program
in 1995 by which the agency used to conduct extensive -- and invasive --
audits on a large sample of taxpayers to determine how well they complied
with the tax laws.
The commissioner of internal revenue, Charles Rossotti, has struggled hard
to correct as many problems as his budget allows. He has also provided the
data that allows the academics at Syracuse University and other outsiders to
judge what is going on. The commissioner himself warns that the lack of
audits threatens to "undermine our entire system of voluntary tax
compliance."
Dayton Daily News, August 25, 2000, Friday, CITY EDITION SECTION: EDITORIAL,
Pg. 14A,
LENGTH: 521 words
KICKR: TOM TEEPEN
HEADLINE: CONGRESS' CURE WAS WORSE THAN IRS' ILLS
SUBHEAD: Agency's overseers not finding widespread abuse of taxpayers
BYLINE: Tom Teepen
BODY:
YOU REMEMBER THE HORROR stories - brutish government officials cruelly
harassing law-abiding citizens, confiscating their property, reducing them
to lives of terror.
That was pretty much the story a few years ago as Congress held hearings on
what members widely held were rampant abuses of power by an Internal Revenue
Service the best of whose agents, it seemed, where merely loutish and
insensitive and the rest of whom were petty tyrants and terrorists.
The result, in addition to repeated histrionic tableaux of congressional
indignation and unctuous solicitude for an abused citizenry, was the
enactment in 1998 of a law holding IRS agents accountable for jerking
taxpayers around improperly. Elaborate mechanisms were set up to take
complaints, investigate them and mete out stern justice, up to and including
the bureaucratic equivalent of the death sentence: firing.
Well, the first report on the new law is in, and it turns out that of the
830 formal complaints of IRS abuse, not one panned out. The charges,
investigated by the IRS under the oversight of the Treasury's watchdog
inspector general for tax administration, were trivial, groundless or
outright bogus.
Not surprisingly, many came from persons hoping to get out of paying taxes
or at least putting off the due date.
In the two years the law has been in effect, only four of the IRS's 16,000
auditors have been fired for abusing a taxpayer - and then for what amounted
to temper tantrums, not harassment as Congress defined it.
Fans of the hearings and advocates for the resulting law credit both with
disciplining a run-amok IRS into sudden civility.
Actually, the problem was wildly exaggerated in the first place and the fix
has had consequences more perverse than purposeful.
The hearings did surface some specific cases of abuse that deserved exposure
and rebuke, but in the main they served as a way for the Republican Congress
to act out its long-held animus toward the very idea of tax collection and
its growing anti-government fantasies.
A relatively few cases were elaborated into a supposed pattern that, in
fact, they didn't show and couldn't support. A cowed IRS was reduced to a
sputtering defense along the feeble lines of 'But, but, but . . .'
The main effect of the supposedly corrective law has been a sharp roll-off
in tax investigations as auditors, fearing for their bureaucratic lives,
proceed timidly. That, and a sorry disproportion of enforcement against the
lowest-income taxpayers rather than against the high rollers. The poor and
near-poor have neither the means nor, generally, the moxie to fight. They
are safe targets.
Congress' dominating conservatives spend so much time in a closed-loop
politics in which they feed right-wing talk radio and are in turn provoked
by its railings that we're sometimes getting government-as-talk-show.
Congress isn't so much passing laws as it is enacting rants.
* Tom Teepen is a columnist for Cox Newspapers. He writes from Atlanta.
Address: c/o The Atlanta Constitution, P.O. Box 4689, Atlanta, Ga. 30303.
E-mail address: teepencolumn£coxnews.com
Phantom Rogues at the I.R.S.
The New York Times
August 19, 2000, Saturday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 14; Column 1; Editorial Desk
Congress conducted hearings in 1997 and 1998 on abuse of taxpayers by agents
of the Internal Revenue Service, inviting self-proclaimed victims to testify
how they had been harassed. The chilling anecdotes, orchestrated by
Republican leaders to buttress their call for a less intrusive federal
government, persuaded Congress to pass new taxpayer protections. A provision
of the 1998 law calls for the mandatory firing of agents who commit any one
of 10 specific abuses.
Now comes the first report card on the legislation. Investigations by the
agency and by an independent watchdog, the Treasury inspector general for
tax administration, found that none of the first 830 complaints of taxpayer
harassment filed under the 1998 statute could be substantiated. Some were
bogus attempts to derail audits. Others were disproved or fell short of
deliberate harassment. The surprising result suggests that the problem of
rogue agents has been greatly exaggerated, with results that are clearly
harmful.
The Congressional anecdotes never amounted to more than a handful of
unsubstantiated claims of discriminatory treatment, such as criminal
investigations launched against taxpayers whom agents deemed to be
troublemakers. But studies conducted after the hearings have documented no
pattern of abuse. The nonpartisan Government Accounting Office found the
allegations made before Congress to be generally groundless. Similarly, the
watchdog report finds no evidence of abuse after the law passed. The new law
appears to have brought any rogue agents who might have existed into line.
But there were probably not many to begin with.
Congress's assault on the agency has been needlessly damaging. The I.R.S.
budget has been cut 30 percent since the 1980's despite the steady rise in
the number and complexity of returns. The 1998 law threatens retaliation
against overzealous agents. No surprise, then, that enforcement efforts are
shriveling. For high-income families, audits have fallen to around 1
percent, a 90 percent drop since 1988. Audits of large corporations have
fallen by almost 40 percent since 1992. Seizures of property of delinquent
taxpayers are down 98 percent. The danger is that lax enforcement will
encourage cheating -- a problem that will not be noticed as long as the
economy booms and tax revenues soar.
Newsday (New York, NY)
August 20, 2000, Sunday
Page F09
HEADLINE: IRS MISCAST IN DOG/PONY SHOW / CONGRESS SHOULD LOOK AT TAX CODE
LOOPHOLES
BYLINE: Robert Reno
DID YOU HEAR the one about the Internal Revenue Service agent who got hauled
in for drunk driving and threatened the cop with a tax audit?
Well, it wasn't as bad as that. He never actually mentioned the word audit
and in any event didn't follow through on his threat since, after all, he
was stewed.
The poor sod was canned by the IRS. But out of 88,000 IRS employees who
weren't fired this year, dismissing one belligerent inebriate wouldn't seem
to be such a bad record. This is especially true since the larger picture
shows that of 839 complaints filed against the IRS in the past two years,
not one has been found to be a valid case of taxpayer harassment.
These results from reports by the Treasury Department's inspector general
for tax administration were detailed last week in the widely respected
journal Tax Notes. Does this mean the IRS has become a warmer, friendlier
agency since Congress told it to reform in 1998? Or does it mean that it's
open season on cheating the IRS? Probably both.
The whole fuss began when the Senate Finance Committee, under the lugubrious
chairmanship of William Roth of Delaware, held sensational hearings in 1997
and 1998. They turned out to be the usual dog and pony show in which weeping
taxpayers were trotted out to give horror stories about how the IRS came
after them like a goon squad.
The committee staff apparently did a wretched job of screening witnesses
because many of their worst stories later fell apart under scrutiny. And now
this new report on taxpayer harassment seems to boil the problem down to one
unlucky drunk at the IRS. The pendulum of Washington outrage seems to be
swinging in an opposite direction toward the notion that the IRS is in
danger of becoming less a ripper agency and more a ripped-off one.
There are disturbing reports that audits are declining, that the agency is
starved of resources and that its employees are more fearful of going after
tax cheats. And two gung-ho reporters from Time magazine have just written
one of those scary books that suggest the sky is falling on the U.S. tax
system as we know it. The Great American Tax Dodge: How Spiraling Fraud and
Avoidance Are Killing Fairness, Destroying the Income Tax, and Costing You
is by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, and from what I hear it is an
overwrought, excessively anecdotal, shrilly reasoned and highly useful book.
Its title says such a mouthful-fraud, killing, destruction-that it is sure
to become this fall's handbook for capital conspiracy theorists.
Going in the space of two years from being bashed for being too mean to
being bashed for being too kind is enough of a trauma to hasten the
destruction of any agency. This is alarming because it is largely the IRS
and its 88,000 workers who have collected immense budget surpluses that have
put the nation in the enviable position of having enough money to save
Medicare and Social Security with enough left over for Republicans to
salivate about abolishing the estate tax.
If word gets out that the IRS has become a nest of softies and tax avoidance
becomes even half as rampant as Barlett and Steele suggest it is, the budget
surpluses could wither and with them any hope of saving Social Security.
Meanwhile, the case for congressional incompetence on tax matters has never
been more compelling. Not only is the Senate Finance Committee incapable of
staging a credible hearing, it is incapable of seeing the real problem,
which is not the IRS but the tax code, the one Congress wrote and amended
over the years into an unintelligible thicket that invariably invites,
practically begs for, evasion.
What Congress needs to do is take a machete to the tax code, whack it into
something that will be a model of fairness and simplicity and that doesn't
merely reward those who can hire the smartest lawyers and accountants to
drive dump trucks through its loopholes.
1040: A-OK: On second look, IRS performs well * The Beaufort Gazette
Beaufort Gazette (South Carolina)
August 20, 2000, Sunday
SECTION: OPINION
LENGTH: 323 words
HEADLINE: 1040: A-OK: On second look, IRS performs well
BODY:
The Internal Revenue Service took a fearful beating at the hands of Congress
in 1997 and 1998 when Senate hearings produced lurid, and highly anecdotal,
tales of abuse of taxpayers at the hands of the IRS.
Congress likes to beat up on the IRS - it would be a rare and courageous
elected official who would stand up publicly on behalf of the tax
collector - even though the problems are of the lawmakers' own making for
enacting a complex tax code and then underfunding the agency responsible for
enforcing it.
Now comes evidence that the IRS was probably never as abusive and
high-handed as the Senate Finance Committee made it out to be. A study by
the new Treasury Department inspector general for tax administration, a post
created to ferret out IRS abuse, studied 1,300 complaints against IRS
employees and found only four in which workers abused their positions. The
four threatened audits for personal reasons - one had been arrested for
hit-and-run and drunk driving - but the IRS found no evidence of any actual
retaliation.
A preliminary study last summer of 141 allegations of employee misconduct
found only one violation - and that was nonpayment of taxes. Over a 21-month
period, the IRS fired 26 of its workers for failing to file a tax return or
pay their taxes.
Critics might argue that the agency performed so well because of newly
enacted taxpayer protections; fair enough, if so. But some tax analysts fear
the pendulum has swung too far and that the IRS has become timid, and the
number of audits has declined dramatically. If tax cheats really are getting
away unpunished because the IRS is fearful of doing its job, then that's
subject matter for new Senate hearings.
Still, it is good to see an agency often criticized by this newspaper and
others do so well under this kind of scrutiny. Although it may not always
seem that way, Americans really do want their government to work well, even
the IRS.
Frank Keiser
I've pointed out before (all to often), you evidence no knowledge of tax
law, no knowledge of how the Service operates and an unreasoning hatred of
the Service. That you get upset when I, and others, point out obvious
fallacies on your silly ramblings is more to your discredit.
AK
<<So Andy, an employee of the Dept. of the Interior can substantially
understate their income, or not file tax returns for years and years, or be
abusive to the public (that they serve too), and have complaints filed
against them, yet they can't be fired on the spot?>>
Apparently, that has never been a problem. So Congress has never found
it necessary to write rules especially tailored to their needs.
<<Isn't that discriminatory?>>
No. Just necessary.
<< Are they not held to a higher standard than even Congress?>>
The special rules that Congress needs are different. They need some rules
on PAC bribes, keeping their pants zipped up, and their bottles plugged.
<<The same Congress that mandated those rules? Don't you see a problem
with that?>>
Fit the rules to the lawbreakers most common to the group. Or just enforce
the Ten Commandments. That would eliminate most of Congress and IRS.
<<The fact that you haven't acknowledged the taxpayer abuses of tax law and
IRS policy just shows how blinded by your rage you really are. >>
How can I, Paul? IRS covers them up, citing Section 6103. Rage? Hey, I am
just trying to help IRS "find the way" before they destroy themselves and
take our great country down with them, Paul. What are you doing, other than
getting all the money you can out of our tax collection fiasco?
<<(Go ahead, it's time for you to call me a commie of something.)>>
When you stop claiming that the end justifies the means, I’ll consider you
as a possible candidate for a democratic society, Paul.
<<There have been numerous articles on that subject. You must have overlooked
them while salivating over that lady's book you so love to quote from. >>
What subject, Paul? Your love of totalitarianism?
AK> but it does not even make sense.
PT<<What doesn't? That individuals come in all shapes and sizes? >>
No, Paul. That Francy can use a computer keyboard. Actually, the
word should be "amazing", since "sense" is not one of Francy's things.
He does quote things well, however.
<<That proportionally there are as many individuals abusing the system from
the outside as there are on the inside? That 'all' taxpayers are good as gold
and only the bad people work for the IRS?>>
I never claimed tax collecting was an easy job, Paul. I just say that because
some taxpayers are tax cheats does not make it OK to have a corrupt tax
collection system managed by corrupt leadership. Two wrongs do not make
a right; didn’t your mom teach you anything?
<<What is it that you smoke each day?>>
Nothing as bad as what you most likely drink every day, Paul.
AK> The TIGTA whitewash business is pretending gross IRS abuses are not abuse.
Of you stooges are just as good as TIGTA - you never saw an abuse or
violation of the law complaint you could not trivialize.
PT<<There are, and have been, and probably will be, problem employees,
or more to the point, employees that someone will have a problem with. Is
it serious enough to fire one each time I don't like the color of their tie,
or the smell of their breath?
Is this "hyperbole" you are spreading, Paul? Or is this just the "a few bad
apples" excuse for a whole system that has turned rotten?
<<Should I file a complaint each time they rule against my client, or get
'demanding' for the tax dollars that are due? >>
When IRS knowingly demands that someone send out a 1099R they know
is fraudulent, you should at least be able to have the Department of Justice
look into it. And YES, you should file the complaint. And when IRS
tries to cover their mistakes by demanding that a cover letter accusing
someone of tax fraud, when they know no such thing is true, the person
abusing their power at IRS should be prosecuted, rather than the system
collapsing around him to secure the corrupt way of business this "service"
considers the norm.
<<That you want to trivialize the problems with the law that allows me or any
other taxpayer to hold that employees employment future solely in our
hands, that they can be fired more or less because "I" say they did this or
did that,>>
Nice distortion, Paul. I don’t want anyone fired just because I say so. I
just
want someone outside of the whitewashing Treasury Department to look into
the facts without obstruct of justice, and then have a hearing on the facts -
not IRS spin.
<<Grow up boy.>>
I have grown up, Paul. It happened fast, when I discovered that out tax
collectors
are not just a bunch of hard working folks trying to fairly apply Congress’s
tax laws
and do a tough job. When I was a child, I believed IRS and Treasury were
honorable
institutions.
--------------------------------------------------------
AK
From: Gray Shockley who trifles not in the affairs of wizards
<<As one of those (albeit retired) government employees, I'd like to comment
that I always tried to get those days off for the GSers and contractors who
worked for me. But I make no apologies for the "training holidays" I gave
MY people on Thanksgiving Friday and for the time between Christmas Eve
and the day after New Year's (hell with two days - more like 50% downtime
for two weeks).>>
That’s fine Gray. I worked for a government contractor who gave us Christmas
through New Years off. It was nice to have that time off. Of course, most of
those
holiday days came out of other normal holidays we did not get off during the
year.
By "training holidays" do you mean paid time off above and beyond all the
standard
federal holidays? If so, did you really have a right to be so generous with
taxpayers’
money? Please explain the term. (We all know that Francy know all about
"training
holidays", and anyone who does not understand your terminology is an official
Francy idiot. But how about your explanation?)
<<But if any of my people had tried to "use sick leave for vacation", that
person would still be in federal prison.>>
I doubt the "federal prison" bit; be careful, Francy will accuse you of his
favorite word "hyperbole". Don’t know where I got the idea that the NTEU
insisted that sick leave was an entitlement to be used as vacation whenever
not needed for sick leave. Must have my unions mixed up. Sorry about that.
However, you might also explain to me what "travel time" at IRS is? In the
real world, we do not know such things.
<<And let's mention some of my Daddy's (a GS-15 for over 30 years and a PMO
(???)
for the Corps of Engineers) people: About half a dozen of 'em - this was in -
if I correctly recall - the 60's - all of a sudden started quitting work at
quitting
time instead of working until they finished whatever they were doing (usually
a couple of hours after quitting time). Did they suddenly "see the light" -
that
they should "go to their favorite vacation spots and complain about how the
private
sector gets paid so much more"?>>
And maybe find in retirement that their company had declared bankruptcy
and no longer would provide insurance and pensions? Of course, it could be
better than what GS-15s get; work in Congress and get a great, untaxed pensions
and not even have to pay into Social Security. They have the best deal - at
taxpayer
expense, of course.
<<Well, uh, actually no. What these guys were doing was going home and going
to sleep and then sneaking into their building at midnight and working until
4am because the only computer that was online at that time was "time-share" but
at these hours it worked in "real time".>>
I have had my share of 70-hour work weeks for 40-hours of weekly pay. Sometimes
lasting for several months. Sometimes it was heavily coerced, other times it
was
done out of pure professional pride and desire to make schedule.
<<And they'd be able to key-in their queries on their ASR-19's and - within a
matter of seconds/minutes instead of hours - get back their answers (Dad's
lab was "Mobility and Environmental Systems Laboratory"). This was the rule
rather than the exception among those with whom I grew up.>>
Fairly typical for most of us engineers. I have never heard of such at IRS. The
one
meeting I requested from IRS at the Cincinnati Federal resulted in the three
IRS lawyers (who came without reading the questions and issues I had mailed
them
to be discussed at that meeting) abruptly calling off the meeting because it
was almost
noon and they had to start lunch on time. Fay Baker, the first Cinci problem
resolution person assigned to my case had a 5 and one-half hour availability
window,
although she nominally worked 8 hours and had a half-hour lunch break. However,
when she was in and not at lunch, she was usually on the telephone. The IRS
folks I
tried to reach in DC did not have much better availability. Some could not even
be
reached by Congressman Boehner. Oxymoron: IRS work ethic.
<<You make the impression of being a "crybaby".>>
You make the impression of being a "pompous butt". So?
<<Those of my people who were crybabies got to hitchhike to wherever they
desired. All I had to do was drop them off at a gate of my choice (or their
escorts'
choice).>>
I am sure you and Fay Baker and Rich Westley and Mike Dolan would all get
along just great. Just as long as no one expects 40 hours of work out of you
for
40 hours of pay.
<<POOF! No more crybaby.>>
If IRS does not get their act straightened out it may result in POOF, no one
pays their
taxes. This imaginary "service" had better start doing their job, which some of
us who
are still paying our taxes think is to: collect the nation’s taxes!
AK
quote, quote, quote
You quote so much, think so little, Francy.
Here is the best of all that: "Treasury inspector general for
tax administration, found that none of the first 830 complaints of taxpayer
harassment filed under the 1998 statute could be substantiated."
The "Treasury inspector general", let me repeat, Francy: "Treasury inspector
general" could not substantiate one of the first 830 complaints of taxpayer
harassment.
You must be kidding. What fool would ever believe that Treasury (owner and
caretaker of Internal Revenue) would ever substantiate IRS abuse if they could
technically find a way out of it? That statement says it all - for IRS and you,
Francy. Nothing in this world is ever going to get IRS to police itself. THEY
CANNOT (AND NEVER HAVE) DO IT!
Do you really think GAO would agree with IRS on all 830 of those cases? Of
course not. How about the Department of Justice? Of course not. 830 of 830
complaints all unjustified? Everyone got the message, Francy. The deck is
stacked at Treasury. Don't even try to get a fair hearing.
--------------------------------------------
Francy >>I suppose that it would be useless to post the reports of GAO
investigations that found the horrors of former Senator Roth's Committee were
mostly imaginary or the articles where TIGTA asked for enough personnel to do
5000 investigations.
AK: I'm still looking for the GAO quotes, Francy. I see IRS's friend Tom Teepen
quoted, and the liberal New York Times quoted a couple of times, your friends
at the Wasington Post quoting IRS spin (did you write it for them?), and
Newsday - another reliable NYC source of solid information. Even the Beaufort
Gazette, with the same IRS spin stories they admit were based on PR releases
from the "Treasury Department Inspector General". OK, Treasury will not tell
anything bad about IRS to the media. What's new? But where was the GAO
investigation justifying what IRS does? I've seen GAO help IRS push for more
taxpayer money, but even with that - they do have some integrity and balance.
Where did GAO or the Department of Justice comment on the zero-out-of-830 study
by IRS (opps, Treasury)?
GET REAL!
Gray Shockley
(in message <20011126210332...@mb-fr.aol.com>):
> You must be kidding. What fool would ever believe that Treasury (owner and
> caretaker of Internal Revenue) would ever substantiate IRS abuse if they
> could technically find a way out of it? That statement says it all - for IRS
and
> you, Francy. Nothing in this world is ever going to get IRS to police
itself. THEY
> CANNOT (AND NEVER HAVE) DO IT!
>
> Do you really think GAO would agree with IRS on all 830 of those cases?
--------------------------------------------------------
You seem to have a pretty strange idea of what the Government ACCOUNTING
Office does.
<http://www.gao.gov/about.htm>
What is GAO?
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) is an agency that works for Congress
and the American people. Congress asks GAO to study the programs and
expenditures of the federal government. GAO, commonly called the
investigative arm of Congress or the congressional watchdog, is independent
and nonpartisan. It studies how the federal government spends taxpayer
dollars. GAO advises Congress and the heads of executive agencies (such as
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, Department of Defense, DOD, and
Health and Human Services, HHS) about ways to make government more effective
and responsive. GAO evaluates federal programs, audits federal expenditures,
and issues legal opinions. When GAO reports its findings to Congress, it
recommends actions. Its work leads to laws and acts that improve government
operations, and save billions of dollars.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
"Swinehood hath no remedy." - Sidney Lanier
Paul Thomas
> <<The fact that you haven't acknowledged the taxpayer abuses of tax law
and
> IRS policy just shows how blinded by your rage you really are. >>
>
> How can I, Paul? IRS covers them up, citing Section 6103.
There have been several newspaper articles about that very issue. That you
don't care to read it isn't the fault of 6103.
> Rage?
Yes, you haven't stopped hating, have you.
> When you stop claiming that the end justifies the means, I’ll consider
you
> as a possible candidate for a democratic society, Paul.
I don't claim that the end justifies the means Andy. There are problems at
the IRS, but firing them all isn't going to do a damn thing except change
the people at the IRS. Numerically you'll end up with the same percentage
of idiots, thieves, liars, power hungry folks, etc. that you have now.
Most every decent HR person will tell you that threatening the workers
isn't the way to encourage quality work. If you want to threaten folks
Andy, move to Afghanistan and join the Talliban.
> <<There have been numerous articles on that subject. You must have
overlooked
> them while salivating over that lady's book you so love to quote from. >>
>
> What subject, Paul? Your love of totalitarianism?
I see. Change the subject because you don't want to admit that you've
never read the stories about the complaints against the IRS being false.
> AK> but it does not even make sense.
> PT<<What doesn't? That individuals come in all shapes and sizes? >>
>
> No, Paul. That Francy can use a computer keyboard. Actually, the
> word should be "amazing", since "sense" is not one of Francy's things.
> He does quote things well, however.
>
> <<That proportionally there are as many individuals abusing the system
from
> the outside as there are on the inside? That 'all' taxpayers are good as
gold
> and only the bad people work for the IRS?>>
>
> I never claimed tax collecting was an easy job, Paul. I just say that
because
> some taxpayers are tax cheats does not make it OK to have a corrupt tax
> collection system managed by corrupt leadership. Two wrongs do not make
> a right; didn’t your mom teach you anything?
And you are planning on fixing the IRS by doing a wrong. How Tallibanian
of you.
> PT<<There are, and have been, and probably will be, problem employees,
> or more to the point, employees that someone will have a problem with. Is
> it serious enough to fire one each time I don't like the color of their
tie,
> or the smell of their breath?
>
> Is this "hyperbole" you are spreading, Paul? Or is this just the "a few
bad
> apples" excuse for a whole system that has turned rotten?
You have overlooked the question, most likely caused by the blind rage to
respond. I'll ask again, lest someone thinks what you posted was an
answer.
Is it serious enough to fire one each time I don't like the
color of their tie, or the smell of their breath?
Should I file a complaint each time they rule against my client,
or get 'demanding' for the tax dollars that are due?
> When IRS knowingly demands that someone send out a 1099R they know
> is fraudulent, you should at least be able to have the Department of
Justice
> look into it.
Why? Who at the DOJ knows about tax laws? Who at the DOJ is going to get
access to your tax files? You have every right to give an employee of the
DOJ a Power of Attorney on your behalf, but they don't have any right to
inspect the tax records of your ex-employer or anyone else's.
It all boils down to that, doesn't it. You're pissed because you got
screwed by your ex-employer, probably more so than the 1099 issue, and you
don't have anyone to take it out on, except the IRS and this newsgroup.
> And YES, you should file the complaint.
Why? What basis for a complaint is there? That "I didn't like it" should
be sufficient to bog down the system? Create an inquiry, tie up hundreds
of thousands of man hours in investigation, review, trial, appeals, appeal
of the appeal, etc, etc....
<Snip the ranting of a mad man>
> <<That you want to trivialize the problems with the law that allows me or
any
> other taxpayer to hold that employees employment future solely in our
> hands, that they can be fired more or less because "I" say they did this
or
> did that,>>
>
> Nice distortion, Paul. I don’t want anyone fired just because I say so.
I
> just
> want someone outside of the whitewashing Treasury Department to look into
> the facts without obstruct of justice, and then have a hearing on the
facts -
> not IRS spin.
That's not what you just said Andy. "And YES, you should file the
complaint." And under current rules, wouldn't that IRS employee risk being
fired 'just because' I complained?
> <<Grow up boy.>>
>
> I have grown up, Paul. It happened fast, when I discovered
> that out tax collectors are not just a bunch of hard working
> folks trying to fairly apply Congress’s tax laws and do
> a tough job. When I was a child, I believed IRS and Treasury
> were honorable institutions.
So, we're back to square one. Your ex-employer filled out a Form 1099R and
submitted it to the IRS, and you're pissed because your ex-employer
completed it wrong.
So, let's hear the story all over again.
End Andy's massive abuses of Netiquette by posting and reposting ancient
history over and over and over again and again.
Gray Shockley
>> You make the impression of being a "crybaby".
On Mon, 26 Nov 2001 19:33:09 -0600, AK wrote
> You make the impression of being a "pompous butt". So?
So, we're both probably right.
> I am sure you and Fay Baker and Rich Westley and Mike Dolan would all get
> along just great. Just as long as no one expects 40 hours of work out of you
> for 40 hours of pay.
ROTFLMBO!!!
Sorry, Charming Stranger, my ordinary duty day was 10-1/2 hours and -
generally - my actual work week was 60-80 hours although my second time in
VietNam, ny duty day was 14 hours, seven days a week (do the math).
When I was First Sergeant with the 5th Infantry Division (Mech), my normal
work week was 16 hours a day x 5 and about 6 - 8 hours on Sat and Sun.
At one point - in the early 80's - I worked an average of 110 hours a week
for seven months. (Not recommended! I ended up collapsing and get to take
high-blood pressure medicine for the rest of my life (I went into
"pre-stroke" - BP of 190/160)).
Gray Shockley wrote:
>But if any of my people had tried to "use sick leave for vacation", that
person would still be in federal prison.>>
The crybaby wrote:
> I doubt the "federal prison" bit;
Uh, well . . . I take it you've got the same military status as former
President Clinton?
Don't doubt it, boy; it's called "malingering" and is punishable by
court-martial if the Commander thinks it appropriate. And the U.S.
Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is the maximum
security part of the military system for those so deserving.
The crybaby wrote:
> , be careful, Francy will accuse you of his favorite word "hyperbole".
> Don’t know where I got the idea that the NTEU insisted that sick
leave was an entitlement to be used as vacation whenever not needed for sick
leave. Must have my unions mixed up.
Unions? What cha talking about now? You are so very, very, very strange (and
unusual). I thought you were from the United States; the military in this
country doesn't have unions.
What is NTEU? ["Nteu!" "God bless you"]
The crybaby wrote:
> Sorry about that. However, you might also explain to me what
> "travel time" at IRS is? In the real world, we do not know such things.
I have no idea how the IRS defines "travel time" but I would imagine that it
is somewhat like the military's. (And every civilian's I've ever known. If
you in your "real world" <snicker> work for a company that uses instant
teleportation, then you wouldn't have "travel time", but most people need a
certain amount of time to get from Point A to Point B.)
Okay, travel time. Real example: During the action in the vicinity of the
Persian Gulf, I had to take a truck (33' U-Haul - we didn't have large
military trucks (VHFS)) to Cumberland Gap Army Depot and - from there - to
Magnavox G & I (government and industry) in Fort Wayne, IN. I don't know how
far it is between those three points but I'd guess at 900 miles or more.
Okay: say that the agency (whatever it may be) decides that 400 miles is what
one can safely drive in a day. Then 900+ miles would give me three days
"travel time" (we did it in two - but I had a young macho PFC with me and he
did a lot of the driving).
And that's - very roughly - what "travel time" is.
The crybaby wrote:
> If IRS does not get their act straightened out it may result in
> POOF, no one pays their taxes. This imaginary "service" had
> better start doing their job, which some of us who are still
> paying our taxes think is to: collect the nation’s taxes!
Have you ever read me typing anything different from that? Most of my posts
here have been in response to people who say that the income tax is illegal
or to those who seem to be charlatans (plus a few folks I enjoy: ggivens and
- I think - R. C. Crawford).
But I'd suggest that the IRS works at the will (and the whim) of our congress
and that's where the real problem is.
You might note that I have never - but NEVER - claimed to know anything about
the IRS. As I've stated before, I got interested in this forum because of my
fascination with the "self-proclaimed paytriots" and the "self-appointed
militia generals", i.e., the wackos and loons.
I've also stated here that I fill out a 1040A because "they" (and you know
how they are) won't allow a 1099-R on the 1040EZ.
Oh! And would you like some cheese with your whine?
Gray Shockley
----------------------------------------------
"It's a foolish man who thinks a
true story can mean only one thing."
- Orson Scott Card
Frank Keiser
A small bit of advice, in responding to Gray, if I were you, I'd write as
little as possible. Up to this point, you can hope that Gray has not read
many of your postings and merely feels you are unbalanced; why write once
again and confirm his suspicions?
Frank Keiser
about their investigation of the IRS. You might have also read that when the
GAO could not substantiate wide spread abuse staff members of the Committee
upset that their charges were groundless advised the individuals not to
testify.
How soon you forget, how little you know:
HEADLINE: 1999 TNT 104-2 DISTURBING QUESTIONS CONTINUE TO DOG SENATE'S IRS
HEARINGS. (Release Date: MAY 27, 1999) (Doc 1999-19180 (5 original pages))
ABSTRACT: The General Accounting Office has finished its reports on the
allegations of witnesses who testified during the April 1998 IRS abuse
hearings held by the Senate Finance Committee, but the public may never
learn what Congress's investigators uncovered.
SUMMARY: The General Accounting Office has finished its reports on the
allegations of witnesses who testified during the April 1998 IRS abuse
hearings held by the Senate Finance Committee, but the public may never
learn what Congress's investigators uncovered.
According to GAO sources, two reports were sent to Finance Committee Chair
William V. Roth Jr., R-Del., on May 24. One of the reports was described as
"innocuous" by a knowledgeable source. The other is said to find no evidence
to support any of the explosive allegations of cronyism and
jackbooted-thug-type behavior leveled at IRS agents.
But because the second report contains confidential taxpayer information
protected by section 6103, Roth will not release it publicly, said Ginny
Flynn, his spokeswoman. The committee won't obtain waivers from the
taxpayers discussed in the report -- which would allow it to be made
public -- because there are too many people involved, Flynn said.
If Roth does not release the other report by June 23, the GAO will release
it as a matter of routine.
Roth originally asked the GAO to investigate the allegations made by his
witnesses after the April 1998 hearings. But one of those witnesses,
Virginia restaurant owner John Colaprete, said in sworn testimony April 27,
1999, that Kathryn Quinn, an investigator on the Finance Committee staff,
urged him to not cooperate with the GAO because "[the Finance Committee was
not] too sure that the GAO was out for everyone's best interest."
"It was just a strange conversation, believe me," Colaprete said in the
deposition. "She wanted me to almost spy on the GAO or something." Flynn
denied Quinn ever discouraged Colaprete from talking to the GAO. In fact,
Flynn said Colaprete told Quinn his attorneys advised him to not talk to the
GAO because of a lawsuit he filed against the IRS agents he had accused of
abusing him. However, Flynn said Quinn told Colaprete to keep in touch with
Finance Committee investigators about the GAO probe "because some witnesses
told us GAO was very confrontational when they were interviewed."
Colaprete also said in the same deposition that Eric Thorson, who was the
lead investigator on the Finance Committee's probe until he took a job in
the private sector soon after the April 1998 hearings, coached him as he
wrote his testimony by reviewing it "quite a few times." Most of that
testimony since has been contradicted by the other alleged victims in court
documents.
AK
AK>> I am sure you and Fay Baker and Rich Westley and Mike Dolan would
all get along just great. Just as long as no one expects 40 hours of work out
of you for 40 hours of pay.
GS>ROTFLMBO!!!
Must be some acronym you learned in the infantry.
GS> When I was First Sergeant with the 5th Infantry Division (Mech), my
normal work week was 16 hours a day x 5 and about 6 - 8 hours on Sat
and Sun. At one point - in the early 80's - I worked an average of 110 hours
a week for seven months. (Not recommended! I ended up collapsing and get
to take high-blood pressure medicine for the rest of my life (I went into
"pre-stroke" - BP of 190/160)).
AK> OK, so you know what long days are. Do you think the folks at IRS do?
GS>But if any of my people had tried to "use sick leave for vacation", that
person would still be in federal prison.>>
GS> The crybaby wrote:...
AK> Ahh - the macho boy from the infantry is calling names again. Let's see, he
must be at least 12. And I suppose it's my turn to say "sticks and stones may
break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Now shall we debate is my
dad could have beat your dad, or my dog is meaner than your dog?
AK>> I doubt the "federal prison" bit;
GS>Uh, well . . . I take it you've got the same military status as former
President Clinton?
AK> Great side step Gray. Want to talk about the subject and cut out your
baby crap?
GS>Don't doubt it, boy; it's called "malingering" and is punishable by
court-martial if the Commander thinks it appropriate. And the U.S.
Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is the
maximum security part of the military system for those so deserving.
AK> I do not care about your baby days history in the military. The posts
here are about taxes and IRS. Any experience there?
GS>Unions? What cha talking about now? You are so very, very, very
strange (and unusual). I thought you were from the United States; the
military in this country doesn't have unions.
AK> I thought you might be talking about IRS when you switched over to
the prison bit, Gray. Did you get into the wrong newsgroup?
GS> What is NTEU?
AK> That is the "National Treasury Employees Union." They are the ones
that fight drug testing at IRS, claim any crooked thing IRS employees get
caught at either was not true or was just a freak occurrence, make up
stories about how many people get canned at IRS, and blame every bad
thing IRS does to people on Congress. A woman by the name of Kelley is the
president. The previous president is one of Clinton’s appointments to the
non-Treasury IRS Oversight Board, along with another Treasury person
who quit or retired from Treasury so she could be appointed. That is the
board that is now lobbying Congress for more taxpayer money to feed the
IRS monster. A taxpayer paid lobby, the oversight board is.
GS>I have no idea how the IRS defines "travel time" but I would imagine
that it is somewhat like the military's. (And every civilian's I've ever known.
If you in your "real world" <snicker> work for a company that uses instant
teleportation, then you wouldn't have "travel time", but most people need a
certain amount of time to get from Point A to Point B.)
AK> I have been told that in the world of IRS, some employees are paid for
the time it takes to drive from there home to their office, and back. Have
never heard of such a thing in real-world employment. But hey - it’s just
taxpayer money, Gray.
AK> If IRS does not get their act straightened out it may result in
"POOF", no one pays their taxes. This imaginary "service" had
better start doing their job, which some of us who are still
paying our taxes think is to collect the nation's taxes!
GS>Have you ever read me typing anything different from that?
AK> Do not normally read you, Gray - and plan to keep it that way.
GS>Most of my posts here have been in response to people who say that
the income tax is illegal ...
AK> I don’t get into the protester stuff, Gray. Some of those folks may
have a point, but one way or another - we have to support our government,
and I do. I do think that the 3-stooge bunch and their bud, Shyster Dan,
encourage the protester bunch by trying to justify IRS misconduct. When
there is no fairness or honesty in the tax collection system, then refusal
to pay is one option to fight the corrupt system. I would rather have real
(non Treasury related) legal recourse when IRS crosses the line. Treasury
will not allow that.
GS>But I'd suggest that the IRS works at the will (and the whim) of our
congress and that's where the real problem is.
AK> Well, you sure have that NTEU line blaming everything on Congress
down pat, Gray. It is not true, but all the stooges like that line.
GS>You might note that I have never - but NEVER - claimed to know
anything about the IRS.
AK> You have made that extremely clear, Gray.
GS> As I've stated before, I got interested in this forum because of my
fascination with the "self-proclaimed patriots" and the "self-appointed
militia generals", i.e., the wackos and loons.
AK> Yep. Anyone who sees things different from General Gray must be a
wacko and loon. Maybe the three stooges should make room for a fourth?
GS>I've also stated here that I fill out a 1040A because "they" (and you
know how they are) won't allow a 1099-R on the 1040EZ.
AK> Is there any point to that statement?
GS> Oh! And would you like some cheese with your whine?
AK> The next time Paul Thomas has a party, I hope he invites you.
Do go, you will have a smashing time there, Gray Shockley.
Frank Keiser
> fascination with the "self-proclaimed patriots" and the "self-appointed
> militia generals", i.e., the wackos and loons.
And it took so little time for Gray to find you, Andy, must be his infantry
background.
AK
> And it took so little time for Gray to find you, Andy, must be his infantry
background.
No wonder the VC won. He could not spot a socialist if they had a hammer and
sickle painted on their face, or thought all property should belong to the
national government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK
Maybe he will read your posts, and understand why I post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK
And as I have pointed out before (all too often), you evidence no sense of
morality, decency, or ethics, think you know everything about taxes (even
though you do not agree with IRS's opinion on filing MFS), keep calling our
badly run tax collection agency "the Service", and have a very difficult time
sticking to the subject.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
AK
>THE MEMBERS of Congress who assaulted and weakened the Internal Revenue
Service in 1998 continue to distance themselves from the consequences.
Yeah - the consequences are that IRS went on a collections strike to show
Congress who is boss. It has been quite successful. (PATCO
could not get away with their strike, but the NTEU just calls it "studying the
regulations for a year or so, and gets away with it. Obviously,
the NTEU is smarter than PATCO was.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Keiser
That's right he was just a mere grunt in the infantry and you served in what
branch of the armed forces?
Frank Keiser
Let's see, I back up my posts with research and third party articles and you
back yours up by, now help me here, ah yes nothing, nothing at all.
Frank Keiser
"Work slow down" another unsubstantiated canard of yours or perhaps you have
some cite for this musing, I'd love to see see it. Or is this like so much
of what you post, a bumper crop of made up findings fertilized from the bull
crap of your mind.
Frank Keiser
I have no idea what you asked the Service about married how taxpayers, who
file separately, should report their income on jointly held accounts. I do
know that I have provided you with cites and legal reasoning on the correct
way the income should be reported,. I can not help that you do not
understand this aspect of the law or other aspects of the law e.g., innocent
spouse, action on decisions, costs in tax court cases, how to correctly cite
the Internal Revenue Code (Need I go on?). I know that you have never
refuted the cites or reasoning I provided, other than with the bald
statement that you have the verbal opinion of someone at the IRS, the same
IRS you constantly deride. Suffice it to say your posts are the best
evidence of your vast knowledge of tax law.
Gray Shockley
(in message <20011127182711...@mb-fz.aol.com>):
> AK> I thought
Nope.
> you might be talking about IRS when you switched over to
> the prison bit, Gray. Did you get into the wrong newsgroup?
--------------------------------------------------------
Nope.
Your words:
>Of course some of us in the real world only get
> one paid day of holiday for Thanksgiving, and
> two for Christmas -- and we get fired if we
> use sick leave for vacation, but then
> productivity counts when you are not in
> government. So tell your friends to worry
> about how much I make, and I will worry
> about how much paid time off they get.
> Seems fair.
You started out slamming the IRS but then you moved to include the
"government".
You slammed the entire military (including those buried in uniform with
posthumous Purple Hearts) as well as the Coast Guard, The Forest Service and
lots and lots and lots of others.
I find it insulting to those who have died in the service of my country to be
put down by someone who, apparently, had a scrap with the IRS.
Tell those dead GI's about their "productivity" not counting, punk.
Tell the widows of the Forest Service firefighters who have died about their
husbands' "productivity" not counting, punk.
Somehow I don't think you've earned the RIGHT, punk, to put down those who
have sacrificed their lives because you had a scrap with the IRS.
You might want to seek clinical assistance for help in dealing with your
obsession, your monomania.
You're a sick puppy.
Gray Shockley
> That's right he was just a mere grunt in the infantry and you served in what
> branch of the armed forces?
--------------------------------------------------------
[blush <grin>]
Actually, I was Signal Corps for ten years and Military Intelligence (SigInt
NOT HumInt) for ten years although often attached or TDY to both infantry and
special ops.
And always (well, except for a horrible 7 months as a supply sergeant (yep; I
REALLY hacked that Commander off)), in "COMMEL" (Communications Electronics).
The unit in which I was First Sergeant in the 5th Infantry Division (Mech)
was Charlie Company, 105th Military Intelligence Battalion (CEWI). "CEWI" is
(if I correctly remember - we always called it "seaweed") Combat Electronic
Warfare Intelligence which meant big jammers (aka "targets") and radio
direction finding (RDF).
Chalie was the truck mechanics, the radio operators, electronic warfare
repairers (my people), some people I don't remember (sigh) and - gasp and
alas - the cooks. Oh, Gawd - the cooks. Think about nine AK's and you'll get
the general idea.
Gray
--------------------------
Gray Shockley
Entropy Maintenance Technician
Tao Chemical Company
--------------------------
gr...@compcomm.com
http://www.compcomm.com/
Vicksburg, Mississippi US
Gray Shockley
(in message <20011127211947...@mb-fk.aol.com>):
> No wonder the VC won.
So you're claiming that the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong won because of the US
military?
> He could not spot a socialist if they had a hammer and
> sickle painted on their face, or thought all property should belong to the
> national government.
Uh, well - dodo - one doesn't worry about political persuasions when one's
life is at stake. The "enemy" is he who is trying to kill you.
However, if you'd like to debate socialism, feel free. I have 52 hours of
philosophy (University of Mississippi, mostly) on my B.A. (called an
"extended major" or "double major") and several hours of philosophy in my one
semester of grad school.
But - if you desire to know my political thoughts - I'm a "mixed economist".
I believe in certain aspects of socialism (military, medical, welfare),
certain aspects of fascism (utilities when necessary) and, mostly, capitalism
(and regulated against those criminals who think that capitalism equates to
greed). I believe in what works best and in changing it when something better
comes along.
So to speak: the "conservative" lives in the past, the "liberal" lives in the
future; "people" live in the present.
Oh and, by the way - I spent 18 months in VietNamn against communists, I
spent 4 years in Germany against communists (39 months of it in the Army's
only nuclear brigade [56th Artillery Brigade (Pershing)] and eight hours in
East Berlin.
I know more about communism than you know about your hairy, sweating palms.
A "socialist"? I must admit that the thought of being invaded by Sweden or
Denmark does not make me shiver in my loafers. And I doubt seriously if the
Swedes and the Danes have "a hammer and sickle painted on their face".
Vachel Lindsay, however, once wrote a poem about you and yourin:
The Leaden-Eyed
Let not young souls be smothered out before
They do quaint deeds and fully flaunt their pride.
It is the world's one crime its babes grow dull,
Its poor are ox-like, limp and leaden-eyed.
Not that they starve, but starve so dreamlessly;
Not that they sow, but that they seldom reap;
Not that they serve, but have no gods to serve;
Not that they die, but that they die like sheep.
And my "unrelated minor" is in "social work".
I can easily research what agencies can help you with your "social disease".
You're self-destructing; you need professional help and you need it now.
If you don't end up in a mental hospital, you're surely going to earn an
ulcer or a heart attack. (Or - God forbid - high blood pressure.)
Because mental illness can cause physical illness.
Mental health can be as simple as saying, "Tha hell with the IRS, I'm going
back to living".
Or insanity can be, "I'm still out for the IRS and I'm going to be an example
of living death".
Life or death - your pick.
Grow up or not - your choice.
Gray Shockley
------------------------
Vicksburg, MS USA
WD Kebschull
Mr. Keiser:
In the past you have indicated that you disagree with my
interpretation and agree with IRS's interpretation of Section 111(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code which indicates that itemized deduction
recoveries are to be included in he calculation of taxable Social
Security benefits and itemzied deductions, etc.
26 USC 111(a) provides
(a) Deductions.-- Gross income does not include income attributable to
the recovery during the taxable year of any amount deducted in any
prior taxable year to the extent such amount did not reduce the amount
of tax imposed by this chapter.
Now here is a questions for you and your buddies.
In as much as an itemized deduction cannot reduce taxable income by an
amount that exceeds the amount of the deduction, precisely, what is it
about the language in section 111(a) of the Internal Revenue Code that
leads the Internal Revenue Service oficials to conclude that it is
appropriate for IRS instructions to cause, in some cases, the portion
of gross income attributable to an itemized deduction recovery to
exceed the amount of the recovery by up to 85 percent.
This is a particularly relevant question because of a legislative
proposal concerning the exclusion of state income tax refunds (one of
several kind of itemized deduction recoveries)in the FY2000 National
Taxpayer Advocate's Report to Congress.
When you answer this question, I will compare your answer with the
position taken by Professor Matthew Barrett of Notre Dame Law School
in May of 1994.
AK:
Francy's response (or more likely than not, his non-response)to the
very legitimate question that I have asked above will reveal his true
colors.
Just for laughs you might want to do an "Internal Revenue Service"
search on www.nytimes.com archieves and see what you come up with that
was published on November 21, 2001.
AK
>Tao Chemical Company
Subj: Gray3
Date: 11/28/01 5:27:32 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: AHK...@MKG.com (Kilpatrick, Andrew H.)
To: akil...@aol.com ('akil...@aol.com')
Just for laughs you might want to do an "Internal Revenue Service" search on
www.nytimes.com archieves and see what you come up with that was published
on November 21, 2001.
Subject:
Re: AK Works All The Time [Re: Question - for Bob Kamman]
Date:
Wed, 28 Nov 2001 03:14:34 GMT
From:
Gray Shockley <gr...@compcomm.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.taxes
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 17:27:11 -0600, AK wrote
(in message ):"<20011127182711...@mb-fz.aol.com>):
AK>>Of course some of us in the real world only get one paid
day of holiday for Thanksgiving, and two for Christmas -- and
we get fired if we use sick leave for vacation, but then
productivity counts when you are not in government.
Gray>> You started out slamming the IRS but then you moved
to include the "government". You slammed the entire military...
Well, I'll have to be more careful in how I state things. No, I did
not slam the entire military, Gray. You are far too touchy. Of
course the stooges try to paint anyone who does not agree with
the way IRS runs their show as "anti-government"; just one of
their smear tactics. But I understand why you jumped on that
one, although you did go to an extreme on it. Even at IRS there
are people who have good work ethic and try. I have met good
and bad there; unfortunately, the system seems to benefit the
politician types much more than the worker types. And when all
the benefits of government work are thrown in (more holidays,
vacations, and other time-off excuses than at most civilian work
places), I sometimes wonder how even the hardest workers
can get much done. There truly is a difficulty in finding people to
resolve issues at IRS from before Thanksgiving until a week or
two after the new year. That statement is not an attack on the
military, Gray.
Gray>>Somehow I don't think you've earned the RIGHT, punk,
to put down those who have sacrificed their lives because you
had a scrap with the IRS.
You really are out in space, Gray. Who's the sick puppy here?
Gray>>You might want to seek clinical assistance for help in
dealing with your obsession, your monomania.
Let me suggest that you keep your comments in this newsgroup
related to IRS and/or taxes. Second, you should not practice
psychology until you have a license. I am sorry about whatever
happened to you in Nam, but that is not my fault.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK
>Organization: Computer Communications
>Approved: Tao Chemical Company (Tao must approve anything.)
>
>You seem to have a pretty strange idea of what the Government ACCOUNTING
Office does.
That could be, Gray. What they do not do is publish self-praising public
relations some for the New York Time to print.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vacations, and other time-off excuses than most civilian work
AK
> have no idea what you asked the Service about married how taxpayers,
I told a supposed expert on the subject at IRS how I handled joint accounts on
my wife's and on my 1040s, what you said I should be doing, and asked him what
the right answer was. The man (I have his name and number) emphatically stated
that I was doing it "exactly right". Of course, Francy knows all.
Now back to what needs to be done at IRS. First, their own words:
(5 PRINCIPLES FROM THE IRS WEB SITE)
The modernized IRS will be guided by five principles:
1) Understand and solve problems from the taxpayer's point of view
2) Expect managers to be accountable
3) Use balanced measures of performance
4) Foster open, honest communications
5) Insist on total integrity
Now: the AK checklist:
FAIRNESS: The de facto motto of the IRS is currently: "There's nothing in the
rules that says we have to be fair."
Tax laws should be changed to make fairness a requirement, and force smart
aleck IRS agents to find a new motto. The IRS claim of "fairness to all" in
their mission statement has never been anything other than a ruse and a bad
joke.
ATTITUDE: We are "the Service" is the attitude. It is arrogant, insolent, and
down right outrageous. The truth is that "Internal Revenue" and "Service make a
perfect oxymoron. Until IRS can be made to believe that they are NOT above the
law and over the Congress, problems with our tax collection system are
inevitable.
PRIVACY, NOT COVERUP: Internal Revenue Code (Title 26), Subtitle F, Chapter
61B, section 6103 was written by Congress to prevent IRS from using public
disclosure of private tax information (1040 and related) as a weapon. What IRS
has done is turned this law around to protect their "privacy" and their abuses
by broadly declaring practically everything in written form as "return
information". This practice allows IRS to refuse to disclose information that
might incriminate them for mistakes and improper conduct. IRS must be made to
comply with the law, as written and as intended, not with their own
self-serving "interpretation" and distortion of the privacy act.
DRUG FREE: A drug ring that operated out of our regional IRS center (in
Covington, KY)was broken up not too long ago. Sure - it's a sign of the times.
Clearly, when drugs get into the work place, lots of bad decisions are being
made, and dishonesty (theft, as well as drugs) goes up. It's not an unusual
phenomenon these days. But IRS goes into full denial on the issue of addressing
their drug problems. Officially, there is none. Drug testing is the obvious
answer. Drug testing is common in the real world ("private sector"), so why
won't an organization as critical to our country as the tax collection system
get the dope addicts out? Could it be because those who make such decisions
have a vested interest in not getting caught? The public ("private sector") has
a right to demand a drug free IRS, but it's not even on the horizon.
ACCOUNTABILITY: The most feared word at the IRS. That's why they won't postmark
their letters with dates, sign the return receipt on certified letters, include
anything meaningful in their letters, or face the press when their conduct is
in question. Why is it so easy for IRS employees to steal and forge payment
checks? Because the system goes out of its way to avoid audit trails. No bank
would handle major funds the way IRS does, because they could not accept the
resultant losses. Accountability suggests that Internal Revenue discontinue
their practice of allowing letters from titled agents being "signed for" by
unidentified personnel whose signatures are too illegible to be read, and whose
names and titles are unlisted. Accountability means being able to trace the
flow of work to find where mistakes, abuses and crimes occur. The good people
should be rewarded, and the bad people should GO. Not at IRS.
RESPONSIBILITY: When someone at the IRS fouls up someone's life, unjustifiably,
the individual who failed to do their job properly, as well as the government,
should be responsible. This means that IRS individuals, not just the taxpayers,
get to pay when IRS goofs. Passing problems created by IRS from one
representative to another (the IRS "shuffle") is simply one more technique for
avoiding individual responsibility at IRS.
PROFESSIONAL: Congress should not tolerate the present level of amateurish and
unprofessional conduct at Internal Revenue. IRS people should get background
checks (before employment)to keep felons out of their midst. IRS should be
employing people who have legitimate finance backgrounds, not more lawyers,
political science majors, and friends of friends. Doing the job "right" needs
to become the focus.
ETHICS: The IRS should stop their lying. If they won't answer, they should so
state. This "we can't" and "unfortunately" stuff should be stopped. Ethics
means an end to taxes on moneys never received. Ethics means no longer dating
time-critical letters a week before they actually go to the post office. Ethics
means being honest! Ethics does not mean waiting almost three years to notify
someone of a mistake, hoping that they have lost their backup by then! Ethics
does not mean one agent supporting the mistake of another agent or playing
intimidation games! Ethics does not mean sending out answers to questions never
asked, rather than addressing the questions.
EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT: Present IRS Oversight committees don't work. "Friends" of
IRS always seem to appear on IRS oversight committees; they aid in the
systematic coverup of IRS blunders, thefts, and drug abuse problems. Oversight
should come from real tax payers, not people from the IRS elite (special
people) list of wealthy and influential people who cannot remember the last
time they filled out their own Form 1040! Oversight should force IRS to
reconcile every official (PROC) interpretation they make with the section of
IRC (law) they base their opinions on. Based on review of the IRC cross
reference, the oversight committee should either confirm or reject every IRS
interpretation. To such extent as possible, the law should be self-explanatory,
and no "interpretation" from IRS should be allowed! The new 9-member
"oversight" board will taxpayers something approaching half a million dollars a
year (for 4 meetings), but has already been restricted from doing much of the
needed oversight.
HIRING: The IRS must start hiring qualified people. For years, they have been
hiring people for every reason, except their ability to do the job. These ill
qualified people are difficult to train and unable to deal reasonably with the
tasks before them. IRS must be able to fire their bummers, rather than just
rotating these people different areas. Rotation allows the mischief and
ineptitude of the inept to go on and on, at the public's expense.
WORK ETHIC: Most of us in the real world ("private sector") put in at least 40
hours of actual work time (as opposed to cooler-time or personal telephone
time). Real jobs don't pay for "travel time" (driving into work) or include
lunch time as work time. We don't get paid for "sick time", but we do get fired
if we take sick time when we are not sick! Is it too much to expect government
workers to put in something that approaches 40 hours for their weekly pay? How
about the same number of holidays as the average real-world worker gets?
(Either that, or IRS workers should quit whining about not getting paid what
they would in the "private sector".)
TRAINING: Instead of training employees how NOT to answer questions directly,
or how to NOT answer at all - IRS employees should be trained by people who
really know the tax system. Sending out excerpts of code and IRS "PROCS"
usually fails to equate to real answers, yet counts as "correctly answered" on
the internal IRS scorecard. Can't the games be cut out, and IRS people either
be trained to give reasonable and documented answers, or fired? When IRS
"answers" are something other than Congressional law, the IRS representative
should honestly acknowledge that they are offering official IRS opinions, based
on IRS interpretation. Presently, IRS presents their opinions as if they are
law - and often they are wrong.
EQUAL TREATMENT: All taxpayers deserve the same treatment. If the ordinary
taxpayer cannot be treated the same as the "important people" (IP's =
politicians, clergy, and famous folk), then something is wrong with the way
ordinary taxpayers are being treated. If an IP files a frivolous return, or
fails to file, they should get the same penalty and the same treatment as those
IRS elects to call "protesters". Many of those deemed "protesters" are simply
people fed up with the unfair, discourteous, outrageous misconduct of IRS
employees. If the President and our Congress got the same tax treatment as
ordinary taxpayers, they would not need our letters to explain the problems
with IRS. Mr. Clinton would not have had to check the polls on IRS, if he had
been just another taxpayer. IRS should END its special favors to special people
policy!
INTEREST: Interest should be interest, not penalty. The old policy of the IRS
paying the same interest rate that they charged helped to keep them honest; now
they intentionally wait almost three years to rip the public with outrageous
interest charges. Interest should be pegged to something real, such as the
4-year new-car interest rate. IRS should not be allowed to collect high
penalties and high "interest" for periods prior to their assessments. For
willful tax evasion, fines should be imposed. This retroactive "interest"
punishment for all IRS assessments is outrageously unfair. Interest should be
nominal, until periods after notification, our until willful intent not-to-pay
has been demonstrated by repeated mistakes.
BILLING: When someone owes money, or at least the IRS thinks they do, the IRS
should be required to provide a proper bill. That means a statement of the
error, the date, and basis of the interest penalty calculations; a simple and
complete accounting of how their final numbers are arrived at. The taxpayer
should not have to put up with anything short of this. IRS flatly refuses to
explain their bills. No IRS bill should be valid, until accompanied by a full
and complete explanation. Again - IRS needs to act professionally.
THESE ARE THE "METRICS". NOW - SET UP METHODS TO EVALUATE, AND START THE
CHANGES!
Paul Thomas
> I told a supposed expert on the subject at IRS how I handled joint
accounts on
> my wife's and on my 1040s, what you said I should be doing, and asked him
what
> the right answer was. The man (I have his name and number) emphatically
stated
> that I was doing it "exactly right". Of course, Francy knows all.
And I have a client that called the IRS and were told that they could
deduct life insurance premiums as long as they claimed the life insurance
proceeds as income. They could be wrong Andy, but then again.
I suppose you are protecting this employees identity under the umbrella of
6103? God it's nice to know you like to have your cake and eat it too.
Frank Keiser
"Gray Shockley" wrote in message
>- gasp and alas - the cooks. Oh, Gawd - the cooks. Think about nine AK's
and you'll get the general idea.
>
Frank Keiser
"No wonder the VC won. He could not spot a socialist if they had a hammer
and sickle painted on their face, or thought all property should belong to
the national government."
And you imply he is a sick puppy! There is one thing that you are right
about though Andy, Gray shouldn't take you seriously - your posts are to
silly to be taken seriously.
AK
>Let's see, I back up my posts with research and third party articles and you
back yours up by, now help me here, ah yes nothing, nothing at all.
Have you ever considered getting a productive job, Francy?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
AK
Internal Revenue has trapped itself in its own world. They take the
Congressional law (IRC = Internal Revenue Code) and "translate" it into
extremely lawyer-like language that many of their own people cannot understand.
IRS does not attempt to reconcile the "Procedures" they generate with the Code
they are supposedly explaining. They operate from their own self-serving
procedures, often re-writing not only the law, but the whole concept behind the
law. The saddest part is that Congress seems helpless in rectifying this.
Either the tactics of IRS are over the heads of our elected officials, or they
are too afraid of the agency they have created to take control of it. There
have been attempts by Congress to rein in the terrible conduct of Internal
Revenue, but each one becomes simply another expensive failure. The latest,
which took over two years to implement, was to be an oversight board. But with
two of the board's "non-federal employees" freshly out of Treasury (one is the
union's ex-president), the oversight board's charter has changed from oversight
to presenting Congress with all the reasons that this bloated bureaucracy needs
even more than the $8.715 billion dollars of annual budget presently approved.
The following is my old checklist of things Congress needs to deal with to
bring Internal Revenue into an acceptable range of conduct. I have shortened
the wording, but also include Val Oveson's IRS Problems list - made just before
he resigned as Treasury's "Taxpayer Advocate".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
FAIRNESS (in fact, not just word):
IRS people almost unanimously declare that "fairness is subjective and cannot
be defined". Some IRS folk even go further, stating: "There's nothing in the
rules that says we have to be fair." (I have personally been told that by two
different IRS representatives.) "Fair" is defined in the dictionary as "just
and honest; impartial; unprejudiced". Yes, it can be defined - and in terms any
decent person can comprehend.
EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT (non-Treasury type):
Congressional IRS Oversight committees have never worked. The Senate Taxation
and IRS Oversight committee is non-functional, and the House Taxation and
Finance committee seems helpless. The slim beam of hope for some true oversight
that came in July of 1998 when Congress converted House bill HR2676 into Public
Law 105-206 has died. IRS has perverted the board into a house boy, designed to
serve IRS, not the public who pays the board's bills.
ACCOUNTABILITY (by public and GAO standards): Accountability is the most feared
word at the IRS. That's why they won't postmark their letters with dates, sign
the return receipt on certified letters, include anything meaningful in their
letters, or face the press when their conduct is in question. "Reorganization"
is another way to destroy established baselines used to evaluate performance.
RECONCILE (IRS interpretations with the law):
If IRS were accountable, they would have to reconcile every official (PROC)
interpretation they create with actual IRC (law). Right now, IRS can distort
any law written by Congress with any sort of "interpretation" they want.
ATTITUDES (changing old attitudes):
There is so much arrogance at IRS. They make their full-time living off the tax
laws, yet often do not seem to understand them. At the same time, they have no
tolerance for anyone who fails to know and understand exactly what they - the
IRS folk - believe are the correct interpretations of the complex tax code. The
IRS folk have turned tax collection into something as complex as space science.
They have created their own language for tax-talk and smugly disdain earthlings
who must spend most of their time making a living - not reading tax manuals.
PRIVACY(as intended by Congress):
Internal Revenue Code (Title 26), Subtitle F, Chapter 61B, section 6103 was
written by Congress to prevent IRS from using public disclosure of private tax
information (1040 and related) as a weapon. What IRS has done is to turn this
law around to protect their "privacy" and hide their schemes by broadly
proclaiming practically everything they write and do as "return information".
This practice allows IRS to refuse to disclose information that might
incriminate them for mistakes and improper conduct. IRS needs a massive dose of
sunshine; their "disclosure officers" are a costly group of lawyer-types whose
main function is to obstruct information flow. The position of "Disclosure
officer"at IRS should be eliminated.
DRUG FREE (like any reputable business people):
A drug ring that operated out of our regional IRS center (in Covington, KY) was
broken up not too long ago. Sure - it's a sign of the times. Clearly, when
drugs get into the work place, lots of bad decisions are being made, and
dishonesty increases. It's not an unusual phenomenon these days. But IRS goes
into full denial on the issue of addressing their drug problems. Officially,
there is none. Drug testing is the obvious answer. Drug testing is common in
the real world ("private sector"), so why won't an organization as critical to
our country as the tax collection system get the dope addicts out? There is no
excuse for IRS not weeding out their dopers.
RESPONSIBILITY (IRS people should be treated as adults, and made responsible
for their actions):
When someone at the IRS fouls up someone's life unjustifiably, the individual
who failed to do their job properly (as well as the government) should be
responsible. This means that IRS individuals, not just the taxpayers, get to
pay when the IRS goofs. Passing problems created by IRS from one representative
to another (the "shuffle") is simply one more technique for avoiding individual
responsibility at IRS. IRS should stop blaming Congress for bad decisions made
at Internal Revenue. IRS should stop making false assertions that they are
"just restoring the situation to what it would have been" or "just doing what
Congress wants" - when they know the facts do not bear out any such statement.
PROFESSIONAL (just like real-world people):
Congress should not tolerate the present level of unprofessional conduct at
Internal Revenue. IRS people should get background checks (before employment)
to keep felons out of their midst. IRS should be employing people who have
legitimate finance backgrounds, not more lawyers, political science majors, and
friends of political friends. They should also stop taking advice from past
managers who performed poorly during their watch at IRS.
ETHICS (not "getting away with it"):
The IRS must stop their lying. This means giving their correct titles, names,
and ID numbers. It means answering questions directly, and finding out the
correct answer, when they don't know. The old system of making up an answer,
knowing everyone will "circle the wagons" for them when they are wrong, must be
stopped.
HIRING(real workers):
The IRS must start hiring qualified people. IRS should hire people because they
are qualified to do the job they are going to be assigned to do. PERIOD! That's
not bigotry - it's just common sense!
WORK ETHIC (trying to do a good job):
Most of us in the civilian world ("private sector") put in at least 40 hours of
actual work time in a week. Real jobs don't pay for "travel time" (driving
into work) or include lunch time as work time. We don't get paid for "sick
time", but we do get fired if we take sick time when we are not sick!
Government employees get very generous holiday and vacation benefits. Some of
that may be in lieu of pay, but quit often it is not. If the time off and pay
isn't enough, don't complain - try another pasture. Most government employees
will be shocked to find out that the grass is not greener outside government.
But do the public a favor and find out, don't grump and take it out on the
taxpayer.
TRAINING (rather than game playing):
IRS employees seem very savvy on tricks and techniques to avoid saying they are
wrong or that an error needs to be corrected. The training needs to be on how
to do the job right, rather than how to avoid the consequences of bad
decisions. One true dilemma for IRS people is how to address mistakes by IRS
management several levels up. The answer should be: tell the truth, and let the
chips fall as they may. If everyone is truthful, they can't fire everyone -
except maybe those at the higher levels who can't get it right.
EQUAL TREATMENT (no more triple standards):
All taxpayers deserve the same treatment. If the ordinary taxpayer cannot be
treated the same as the "important people" (politicians, clergy, and famous
folk), then something is wrong with the way ordinary taxpayers are being
treated.
INTEREST (real-world type):
Interest should be interest, not penalty. The old policy of the IRS paying the
same interest rate that they charged helped to keep things honest; now IRS
seems to wait intentionally, so records can be lost and high "interest" rates
can be charged.
BILLING (real-world invoices):
When someone owes money, or at least the IRS thinks they do, IRS should be
required to provide a proper bill. That means a statement of the error, the
date, and basis of the interest penalty calculations; a simple and complete
accounting of how their final numbers are arrived at. The taxpayer should not
have to put up with anything short of this. No IRS bill should be valid, until
accompanied by a full and complete explanation.
END PUBLIC RELATIONS BULL (end the smoke)
The public relation games IRS plays, using taxpayer money and resources that
are designated to collect taxes, should be brought to an end. The "friendly"
and "neighbor-next-door" stuff may seem harmless, but distracts focus from the
real problems at IRS. "Professional" is what most of the public would like to
see at IRS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
20 Most Serious Problems Facing Taxpayers, per the "advocate", in the National
Taxpayer Advocate's Annual Report to Congress for 1999:
#1 Complexity of the Tax Law
#2 Clarity and Tone of IRS Communications
#3 Administration of the Earned Income Tax Credit
#4 Lack of One-Stop Service
#5 Penalty Administration
#6 Inability to Access the Toll-Free Number
#7 Lack of Acknowledgment of Correspondence and Payments
#8 Divorced and Separated Taxpayers
#9 Offer-In-Compromise Program Issues
#10 Misapplied Payments
#11 Delays in Compliance Contacts
#12 Audit Reconsiderations
#13 Maintaining Taxpayers' Current Addresses
#14 Separate Mail Out of Math Error Notices and Refund Checks
#15 Compliance Burden on Small Business
#16 Lack of Concern for Taxpayer Problems and Issues
#17 Substitute for Return Issues
#18 Understanding Federal Tax Deposit Problems
#19 Cost to Taxpayers of Electronic Filing
#20 Automated Collection System Levy Releases
--------------------------------------------------------------
AK
>I suppose you are protecting this employees identity under the umbrella of
6103? God it's nice to know you like to have your cake and eat it too.
So refreshing to hear some bull from someone other than Francy. No Paul, what
the good man at IRS was telling me would come under section 6110 and be public
information. His name is no secret either, but still none of your business.
Live with it.
Frank Keiser
replied to you. They laid out what they believe the law to be and, unhappy
with their answer, you go on and on. It makes no difference to you that old
section 58 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (the provision of the Code
that contained a specific tax benefit directive for minimum and alternative
minimum tax) was repealed (in 1986 in case you missed it) or that the
Committee reports on the repeal indicate that the principal reason for the
repeal was the complexity the old section had introduced . Or that the
replacement (Section 59(g)) is couched as follows:
" (g) Tax benefit rule
The Secretary may prescribe regulations under which differently
treated items shall be properly adjusted where the tax treatment giving rise
to such items will not result in the reduction of the taxpayer's regular tax
for the taxable year for which the item is taken into account or for any
other taxable year."
the applicable term being "may" (not shall) "prescribe regulations under
which differently treated items shall be properly adjusted " and which calls
into question whether section 111 even applies (i.e., Why have a section
59(g) if, as you claim, the adjustments are already covered by section
111?). Likewise, you are undeterred at the number of tax benefit cases that
have been lost in minimum and alternative minimum tax area (Or have you
never researched the area?). Finally, you are undeterred by 1994 changes in
the regulations and, that though in your circumstances the Service's
position may harm you, for some the taxpayers the current position of the
Service provides a significant tax benefit. You have never refuted those
points (except perhaps in your own mind) and repeating the same stale post
over and over will not make it more right.
As I have stated from day one, you have an argument for section 111 relief
but, having read both sides, I believe the government's argument against
your position is better. Ah, but you have a professor of law you say who
supports your position to which I say "So?". Ultimately, until the Courts
rule or the Service changes its position, you have an argument and nothing
more.
Frank Keiser
an argument against interest and penalties (but see section 6404(f)
erroneous advice of the Service must be in writing for penalties or other
additions (read interest, etc) to be abated). Heck, even if the Service's
advice were in a publication and was wrong, you'd still owe the deficiency
(e.g., "Nor can an interpretation by taxpayers of the language used in
government pamphlets act as an estoppel against the government nor change
the meaning of taxing statutes; . . ." Adler v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 9 Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 91, 93.)
But then this is like so much of what you post; a fantasy devoid of any
foundation.
Frank Keiser
So the Service "does not attempt to reconcile the 'Procedures' they generate
with the Code they are supposedly explaining". And your basis for that
statement? Simple answer is this, like so much of what you post, has no
basis. You have no idea of the levels of Review a Revenue Procedure goes
through just as you had no idea about Actions on Decisions. These things are
not hidden (Heck, that information is not even as hard to find as that
innocent spouse stuff you went on about because the Service hide it from
you - you remember - they stuck it in Publication 971 and titled it
"Innocent spouse Relief"). Fact is you have no idea.
Frank Keiser
You're going to have to help me with this: How does a verbal statement come
under section 6110 of the Internal Revenue Code. I'm having a little
trouble with this, as its title indicates, section 6110 deals with "Public
inspection of written determinations" (but see limitations on application of
written determinations to taxpayers other than the taxpayer receiving the
written determination - section 6110(j)). So did this employee use psychic
writing or perhaps spelled his conclusions out on a Ouija board when he
spoke to you?
Frank Keiser
posts.
WD Kebschull
>Heck, even if the Service's advice were in a publication and was
wrong, you'd >still owe the deficiency (e.g., "Nor can an
interpretation by taxpayers of the >language used in government
pamphlets act as an estoppel against the >government nor change the
meaning of taxing statutes; . . ." Adler v. >Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 9 Cir. 1964, 330 F.2d 91, 93.)
Frank Keiser:
Oh goody, I bet those whose have benefitted illegally in the past from
IRS's bogus interpretation of section 56(b)(1)(D) of the Internal
Revenue Code as reflected in IRS instructions are going to be really
thrilled when they find out that they are going to have to cough up
the tax on the refunds of tax deductions which provided a tax benefit
in the prior year when the REGULAR TAX was paid but which were
excluded from alternative minimum taxable income in the year the
refund was received
If you go back and look at the redacted communications between IRS and
me that you posted previously, you will find that IRS claimed that
refunds of taxes that were deductible in a prior year under paragraphs
(1), (2) and (3) of section 164(a) when the regular tax was paid are
to be excluded from alternative minimum tax in the recovery year under
section 56(b)(1)(D).
Section 56(b)(1)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code provides,
(D) Treatment of Certain Recoveries.--No recovery of any tax to which
subparagraph (A)(ii) applied shall be included in gross income for
purposes of determining alternative minimum taxable income.
Section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides that certain taxes are not deductible
for alternative minimum tax purposes while the same taxes are
deductible for regular tax purposes under paragraphs (1), (2), (3)of
section 164(a).
So Frank, what is it about the language in section 56(b)(1)(D) that
leads IRS to issue instructions that exclude refunds to which
paragraphs (1), (2), (3) of section 164(a) of the IRC applied from
gross income for purposes of determining alternative minimum taxable
income?
Contrary to what I posted earlier, there actually is a circumstance
where a taxpayer can receive a tax benefit from claiming a deduction
for an excess tax payment in a year when the alternative minimum tax
is paid. This occurs when the taxpayer's non-capital gain income is
less than the 28 percent tax threshold and as a consequence, a greater
portion of the taxpayer's capital gains are subject to 10 percent
capital gains tax and a lesser portion are subject to the 20 percent
capital gains tax because of the deduction of the tax overpayment. See
page 2 of Form 6251. So yes, section 56(b)(1)(D) does provide
something that section 111(a) does not provide, but its does not
provide for excluding refunds of deductions that provided a tax
benefit in a year when the regular tax was paid from gross income for
alternative minimum tax purposes which is what IRS instructions do.
Subsequently, if the taxpayer is required to pay the alternative
minimum tax in the recovery year and the regular income/capital gains
income are similar in the recovery year to those in the deduction
year, a tax refund from a year when alternative minimum tax was paid
results in a zero sum game.
If the taxpayer is subject to the alternative minimum tax in the
recovery year and the regular income is above the 28 percent tax rate
threshold or if there are no capital gains, the tax refund from the
prior year may cause no change in the tentative minimum tax. Overall
the taxpayer may benefit by an amount equal to 10% the tax refund.
However, based on IRS instructions, if the taxpayer is only subject to
the regular tax in the recovery year, he's likely to get screwed.
While the tax overpayment reduced taxes by 10 percent of the
overpayment because of more of the capital gains being subject to the
10 percent rate as opposed to the 20 percent rate, based on IRS
instructions the recovery increases regular income subject to the
regular tax rate and possibly sn additional portion of capital gains
subject to the capital gains 20 percent rate. Thus the refund of a
deduction that reduced taxes by 10 percent of the deduction could have
resulted in additional taxes that range between 15 and 39.6 percent of
the tax refund in years prior to 2001 when the new rates kick in and
this excludes any adverse tax impact from IRS's bogus interpretation
of section 111(a). Considering IRS's bogus interpretation of section
56(b)(1)(D) that might really get a taxpayer pissed off.
Now lets see, Frank. You believe that under section 111(a) of the IRC
the gross income attributable to an itemized deduction can be up to
1.85 times the amount of the recovery for a Social Security recipient
while on the other hand you believe that a refund of a tax that was
deducted in a prior year when the regular tax was paid and included in
gross income as a result of its entry on Line 10 of Form 1040 may go
untaxed as a result of IRS's interpretation of section 56(b)(1)(D)if
the taxpayer pays the alternative minimum tax in the recovery year.
In a Tax Analyst report by Sheryl Stratton it was reported that the
National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olsen comments on October 17 to the
D.C. Bar's tax audits and litigation committe reflected the follwoing:
"She would also like to see the IRS have the authority to correct
errors. The drafting of such a proposal is difficult because of the
delicate balance that must be struck so as not to open the floodgates,
Olson said.
There are situation in which the IRS has made a mistake that can't be
fixed because the statute of limitations has expired, she said. The
IRS "should be held accountable for its errors, and should have the
authority to admit it was wrong, and to fix it, she said."
What the National Taxpayer Advocate be talking about?????
Sounds like she is echoing some of AK's comments!
AK
<<In a Tax Analyst report by Sheryl Stratton it was reported that the
National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olsen comments on October 17 to the D.C. Bar's
tax audits and litigation committe reflected the following:
"She would also like to see the IRS have the authority to correct
errors. The drafting of such a proposal is difficult because of the
delicate balance that must be struck so as not to open the floodgates,
Olson said.>>
AK> Well, maybe that is why I am so hard on poor little IRS; I never understood
that IRS not only tries to hide its mistakes, but does not even have authority
to correct its errors. Gosh, I wish TP Advocate Janey Tabor had explained that
to me when we met to resolve some of problems at IRS that keep the system from
allowing correction of stupid errors; that was the meeting where I met my first
live (kinda live) "IRS Disclosure Officer". Maybe Ms. Olsen should go further
to explain just what terrible things would happen, should IRS "open the
floodgates" to fix some of their errors.
Olsen:<<There are situation in which the IRS has made a mistake that can't be
fixed because the statute of limitations has expired, she said.>>
AK: Yep, and IRS knows just exactly how long they need to drag things out until
the statute of limitations protects them. However, when I asked if the
tax-on-money-never-received was subject to the statute of limitations, since
the date it allegedly was "in my account" was over three years prior, IRS
refused to answer. Get this: because of Section 6103. Make any sense? No one at
IRS ever claimed they had to make sense - just not get caught. THE STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS SHOULD ONLY APPLY TO IRS WHEN THEY HAVE RESPONDED HONESTLY AND IN A
TIMELY FASHION TO ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CASE. (i.e. In most cases, the
statute of limitations should not apply to IRS correcting their errors.)
Olsen:<<IRS "should be held accountable for its errors, and should have the
authority to admit it was wrong, and to fix it, she said.">>
AK: Where in the laws of Congress (not Treasury!!!) does it say that IRS has no
"authority to admit it was wrong". Sounds like one more of those "broad
interpretations" that IRS likes to make on its own behalf.
Kebschullw: <<Sounds like she is echoing some of AK's comments>>
Not quite, but at least she admits that IRS is sometimes wrong. (Take that
stooges (Francy, Thomas, Easy)!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Keiser
require the treatment you object to. I could cite you the Supreme Court's
often cited remark that they (the Court) do not sit as a committee for the
perfection of the tax law.
The question was never whether your interpretation was better, or fairer, or
some other test; if the issue were ever to be tried you would have to show
that Treasury's interpretation is unreasonable. ("Section 7805(a) of the
Code vests in the Treasury Department the primary responsibility for the
administration of the tax laws. In light of this directive, the Supreme
Court has emphasized that courts must defer to a Treasury Regulation if the
regulation is reasonable. National Muffler Dealers Assoc. v. United States,
440 U.S. 472, 489 [43 AFTR 2d 79-828] (1979); Fulman v. United States, 434
U.S. 528.." HAYDEN v. COMM. , U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 85
AFTR 2d 2000-825, 2000-1 USTC P 50219). For "[w]hen a court reviews an
agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted
with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has
directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress
is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the
agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.
If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the
precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own
construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an
administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous
with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether
the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute."
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 81
L. Ed. 2d 694, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 118, 52 U.S.L.W. 4845, 21
Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1049, 14 Envtl. L. Rep. 20507 (1984)
And as I have said in the past (to often), frankly, I do not think you can
show the 19994 regulations are unreasonable.
Frank Keiser
I realize that you lack to the sense to follow the tax benefit doctrine
argument (Heck you lack the sense to follow any tax argument.) but, let me
point out, disagreement is not necessarily error. The regulation that is the
source of KebSchullw complaint, in fact, benefits some taxpayers while
apparently harming him. But even having said that, I believe that KebSchullw
would have to admit that the Service's regulation of one "AGI" for regular
tax and alternative tax is considerably easier mathematically for taxpayers
to understand and comply with. Further, any choice in this area would have
generated winners and losers.
Meanwhile, your friends in Congress do more to help the Service provide free
e-filing:
The Washington Post
December 04, 2001, Tuesday, Final Edition, Pg. A23
IRS Told Its Efforts May Step on Toes Of Private Industry; Eight on Hill
Criticize 'EZ Tax Filing' Plan
Albert B. Crenshaw, Washington Post Staff Writer
Since the mid-1990s, members of Congress, especially Republicans, have been
pressing the Internal Revenue Service to do more electronically -- and the
agency has been striving mightily to comply.
Now it turns out that the IRS is doing too much to suit some GOP lawmakers.
Last week, eight House Republicans wrote Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director
of the Office of Management and Budget, complaining that something called
the "EZ Tax Filing project" violates OMB's Circular A-76, a 1983 directive
that governs government policy when it performs services that might be done
by the private sector. The letter cites what it called the circular's "basic
tenets," that the government should not compete with private enterprise.
Leading this charge is Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), whose
district is home to Intuit Inc., maker of Quicken TurboTax tax preparation
software.
Cunningham is a strong supporter of most IRS efforts to increase electronic
filing and other online assistance to taxpayers, his spokeswoman Harmony
Allen said. "But as far as getting involved in tax preparation software, we
want to leave that to the private sector," she said.
"It's not really a point of contention" at the moment, she said, and the
letter is meant merely to put OMB and IRS on notice of congressional
concerns.
"As you know, income tax preparation software and interactive online
preparation is well-established non-governmental commercial activity," said
the Republicans' letter. "We see no compelling reason for the federal
government to compete in this field." The letter was also signed by GOP
Reps. Christopher Cox (Calif.), John T. Doolittle (Calif.), Robert L.
Ehrlich Jr. (Md.), Mark Foley (Fla.), Robert W. Goodlatte (Va.), Darrell
Issa (Calif.) and Gerald C. Weller (Ill.).
Daniels in late October announced a new "e-government plan" to "accelerate
federal government improvements in effectiveness, efficiency and customer
service."
The plan involves 23 e-government initiatives spread across at least 30
agencies. It covers areas ranging from government asset sales, disaster
assistance and grant eligibility to training and recruitment. One initiative
involves streamlining wage and tax reporting by businesses. Another is EZ
Tax Filing.
Terry Lutes, director for the IRS Electronic Tax Administration, said the EZ
project is a wide-ranging look at "additional ways for taxpayers to interact
with the IRS" electronically. It will consider everything from easier filing
to having the IRS collect documents, such as W-2s and 1099s (wage and income
forms), and provide them to taxpayers, instead of having employers and other
payors send them to taxpayers separately.
Online tax preparation will be in the mix, he said, but "we will lay out all
the issues, including private-sector concerns. That will be part of the
analysis we lay out for the administration."
In fact, the IRS has been doing a form of tax preparation via push-button
telephone for many years. With the agency's TeleFile system, taxpayers with
simple returns can call in, key in their W-2 wages and other data, and the
IRS will compute their tax along with any refund or balance due.
People have asked, "Why couldn't you just migrate that same application to
[the] Internet," Lutes said.
Scott Gulbransen, a spokesman for Intuit, said the company is a strong
advocate of increased electronic filing but agrees with the lawmakers that
"responsibility for [return] preparation lies with the taxpayer."
OMB officials said yesterday the agency had not yet received the letter,
which was dated Nov. 28 and, apparently, not sent electronically.
AK
Francy:<<I realize that you lack to the sense to follow the tax benefit
doctrine
argument (Heck you lack the sense to follow any tax argument.) >>
AK: I can sure follow any tax argument better than a dope head who resents the
right of anyone but himself owning property or having wealth.
AK: Now onto a subject: IRS and the tax benefit doctrine. There was never an
issue
in my case of whether or not I received anything from the pension money "in my
account", or any suggestion that I could have benefited from "my account". And
the courts had been telling IRS, since about the time I was born, that they
cannot
tax something conditional, until the conditions are met and the income is real.
That is why IRS fled to the Section 6103 (privacy) to avoid discussing what
they
were attempting to illegally do. That is also why IRS used words such as
"confiscated"
to describe the loss of my account due to not meeting the vesting time
condition.
That is why IRS obstructed information gathering and used deceitful wording to
avoid truthfully dealing with an issue.
Francy: <<but, let me point out, disagreement is not necessarily error.>>
AK: There was no "disagreement" on the facts in my case, and no "error".
There was a simple criminal act, which IRS is well skilled at in committing
and defending against those without power, without lots of taxpayer money,
and without political influence.
Francy:<< The regulation that is the source of KebSchullw complaint, in fact,
benefits some taxpayers while apparently harming him. But even having said
that, I believe that KebSchullw would have to admit that the Service's
regulation
of one "AGI" for regular tax and alternative tax is considerably easier
mathematically
for taxpayers to understand and comply with. Further, any choice in this area
would
have generated winners and losers.>>
AK: Why don't you stop calling it "The Service"; it is NOT!
As for Mr. WD Kebschull's concerns. First, the issues in taxation are not
fair/unfair,
but "was there really some income and could it be legally taxed." What on earth
does
"easier mathematically" have to do with legal or not legal? Now let me ask you,
Francy, one of WDK's questions: "What is it about the language in section
111(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code that leads IRS to issue instructions that can lead
to the
gross income attributable to an itemized deduction recovery exceeding the
amount
of the recovery?"
Is it true Francy that IRS is demanding that income amounts greater than those
actually obtained should be taxed? Are you, Francy, claiming that Mr.
Kebschall
is correct in claiming that imaginary gain is being taxed, but you say it is
O.K.
because it is "easier" for IRS to do it that way? We both know it is rubbish,
if that
is what you are claiming on behalf of your good buddies at IRS.
Francy:<<Meanwhile, your friends in Congress do more to help the Service
provide free
e-filing: The Washington Post December 04, 2001, Tuesday, Final Edition, Pg.
A23
IRS Told Its Efforts May Step on Toes Of Private Industry; Eight on Hill
Criticize 'EZ Tax Filing' Plan Albert B. Crenshaw, Washington Post Staff Writer
Last week, eight House Republicans wrote Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., director
of the Office of Management and Budget, complaining that something called
the "EZ Tax Filing project" violates OMB's Circular A-76, a 1983 directive
that governs government policy when it performs services that might be done
by the private sector.>>
Looks like the Tax-Pro Lobby has Daniels in their pocket.
<< "basic tenets," that the government should not compete with private
enterprise.>>
AK: In other words, we should let "private enterprise" collect our taxes, not
the
government agency that gets ten billion dollars a year to do that job. Yep -
makes
sense if it puts money in your pocket, I suppose.
<<Leading this charge is Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), whose
district is home to Intuit Inc., maker of Quicken TurboTax tax preparation
software.>>
AK: Nice to know who is funding "private enterprise" over the public good.
<<Cunningham is a strong supporter of most IRS efforts to increase electronic
filing >>
AK: As long a Intuit kicks in bigtime to his campaign coffers, sure.
Harmony Allen (?):<< "As you know, income tax preparation software
and interactive online preparation is well-established non-governmental
commercial activity," said the Republicans' letter.>>
AK: Sure, as long as you want to pay a fee to have a third party do IRS's
job and then exploit your personal tax information for additional profit.
Harmony<<"We see no compelling reason for the federal government to
compete in this field.">>
AK: Then don't expect too many people to e-file; it is a stupid thing to do
under
present conditions.
<< The letter was also signed by GOP Reps. Christopher Cox (Calif.),
John T. Doolittle (Calif.), Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (Md.), Mark Foley (Fla.),
Robert W. Goodlatte (Va.), Darrell Issa (Calif.) and Gerald C. Weller (Ill.)>>
AK: A list of people who have sold out the public that pays them.
AK: You know, Francy - it really is ironic that after September 11, Congress
is still playing patsy to the Tax-Pro lobby. I would think that every one of
those
poor worker-bee types at IRS that have to open up the envelopes with 1040s
in them would be praying there is no anthrax or fake powder in any of those
envelopes, and wondering why IRS never implement the kind of electronic
filing that should have been available ten years ago. We really need electronic
filing more than ever. And it is not going to happen (in volume) until Intuit,
Joe's Quick Money Shop, and all the others who want a cut of what IRS should be
doing are told where to go by an IRS and a Congress with some gumption and
common sense. There I go on "common sense" again; doomed, aren't we?