IRS Audits Single Mother For
Not Making Enough Money
By Cara , Feministe
"I asked the IRS lady straight upfront - 'I don't have
anything, why are you auditing me?' " Porcaro recalled. "I said,
'Why me, when I don't own a home, a business, a car?' "
The answer stunned both Porcaro and the private tax specialist
her dad had gotten to help her.
"They showed us a spreadsheet of incomes in the Seattle area,"
says Dante Driver, an accountant at Seattle's G.A. Michael and Co.
"The auditor said, 'You made eighteen thousand, and our data show a
family of three needs at least thirty-six thousand to get by in
Seattle."
"They thought she must have unreported income. That she was
hiding something. Basically they were auditing her for not making
enough money."
Seriously? An estimated 60,000 people in Seattle live below the
poverty line - meaning they make $11,000 or less for an individual
or $22,000 for a family of four. Does the IRS red-flag them for
scrutiny, simply because they're poor?
The IRS must either think that the United States is just filled
to the brim with liars, or that they receive an awful lot of tax
returns for people who don't exist. A whole lot of people in this
country, not just in Seattle, live under the poverty line - even
though the poverty line is actually placed ridiculously low. And more
still live above the official poverty line while still being poor.
It's usually not pretty.
It's sure as hell not just. And often, those people need the
help of friends and family to get by. But as they will tell you, it
can be done - because, simply, it has to.
As Westneat points out, it's not as though low-income people
can't commit tax fraud. But choosing them as audit subjects
specifically because of their low income is incredibly classist, and
far from cost effective. It can also be just plain cruel and
vindictive, as it turned in Porcaro's case:
She had a yearlong odyssey into the maw of the IRS. After being
told she couldn't survive in Seattle on so little, she was notified
her returns for both 2006 and 2007 had been found "deficient." She
owed the government more than $16,000 - almost an entire year's
pay.
She couldn't pay it. Her dad, Rob, has run a local painting
business, Porcaro Power Painting, for 30 years. He asked his
accountant, Driver, for help.
Rachel's returns weren't all that complicated. At issue,
though, was that she and her two sons, ages 10 and 8, were all living
at her parents' house in Rainier Beach (she pays $400 a month rent).
So the IRS concluded she wasn't providing for her children and
therefore couldn't claim them as dependents.
She stood to lose what is called earned income tax credit, a
refund targeted to help low-income workers. You qualify only if
you're working, as Rachel has been.
So, according to the IRS, parents living in intergenerational
housing aren't caring for their children. Further, while I don't
personally know anyone for whom $16,000 is not a huge sum, it's an
impossible and mind-boggling one for someone who earns $18,000 a
year.
When Porcaro's father's accountant informed the IRS that they
had been interpreting their own tax law wrong, they didn't exactly
back down - they instead launched an investigation against
Porcaro's parents. As one can imagine from the fact that such an
investigation was conducted at all, that, too, got ugly:
They racked up $10,000 in accountant bills - $8,000 of which
Driver is trying to recover from the IRS.
In the end, the parents were cleared. The IRS also backed off
trying to reclaim Rachel's earned income tax credit.
But the agency insisted Rachel couldn't prove she was
supporting her children - she didn't have enough receipts - so
she had to stop claiming them as dependents. A few weeks ago she paid
back $1,438 (plus penalties and interest!) on that issue.
Way to go, IRS. You did an investigation likely costing tens of
thousands of dollars (counting both sides). To squeeze a grand out of
a single mom who did nothing wrong.
Now, for tax purposes, Porcaro's children just don't plain
exist. She's not supporting them. Her parents aren't supporting
them. Apparently these children don't eat, wear clothes, incur
medical bills, or sleep anywhere - except that they do, and the IRS
just doesn't give a shit.
There was no fraud here. Porcaro was and is supporting her
children. She just so happened to be doing it under a very common
living arrangement that the IRS doesn't seem to like. No one was
breaking the law by claiming her children as dependents twice. She
filed her taxes honestly, and indeed probably paid extra money she
didn't have to ensure that they were done right. And after that she
is still being penalized, both now and in the future.
And she's hardly alone in her struggle:
Why did this happen? The IRS won't say, but Congress has been
fighting for years about the earned income tax credit for the working
poor.
Republicans have called the credits "backdoor welfare" and
tried to cancel them. When they controlled Congress, they ordered the
IRS to ramp up audits of people who claim the credit.
In 2006, credit recipients such as Rachel were more than twice as
likely to get audited as the rest of the 140 million individual tax
filers.
So, while upper middle class and rich people are being handed
actual tax breaks out the ass, poor folks are being specifically and
disproportionately targeted for tax "breaks" that they need to
survive.
The thing is, while I'm sure it doesn't feel that way to her,
Rachel Porcaro's story probably has a comparably happy ending. A
whole lot of single moms making $18,000 a year don't have parents
with accountants, not to mention $10,000 to pay now and try to get
back later. And I dread to think of what the IRS does to those
women's lives.
Further, this absolutely is a women's issue:
women are disproportionately represented among the working
poor, and single moms are even more over-represented (49% of
working poor families are headed by single women). We've got a
system that is undoubtedly classist, consequently sexist, and, since a
greater percentage of people of color live in poverty as compared to
whites, racist.
Porcaro's story isn't just scary and outrageous
because of what was done to her - it's also scary and outrageous
because it reveals that there are a lot of stories like it that
aren't making the news.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to Pam's
List - Democratic Activist
the subject matter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~