Biden's Proposal to Empower I.R.S. Rattles Banks and Their Customers

  
Via:  Just Jim NC TttH  •  2 months ago  •  45 comments

By:   Kate Kelly and Alan Rappeport (MSN)

Biden's Proposal to Empower I.R.S. Rattles Banks and Their Customers
When the Biden administration looked for ways to pay for the president's expansive social policy bill, it proposed raising revenue by cracking down on $7 trillion in unpaid taxes, mostly from wealthy Americans and businesses. To help find those funds, the administration wants banks to give the Internal Revenue Service new details on their customers and provide data for accounts with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600. That...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


When the Biden administration looked for ways to pay for the president's expansive social policy bill, it proposed raising revenue by cracking down on $7 trillion in unpaid taxes, mostly from wealthy Americans and businesses.

© Nick Oxford for The New York Times "We have heard a lot from our customers about their concerns about their privacy," said Jill Castilla, the chief executive of the one-branch Citizens Bank of Edmond, just outside Oklahoma City.

To help find those funds, the administration wants banks to give the Internal Revenue Service new details on their customers and provide data for accounts with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600. That has sparked an uproar among banks and Republican lawmakers, who say giving the I.R.S. such power would be an enormous breach of privacy and government overreach.

Banks and their trade groups are running advertising and letter-writing campaigns to raise awareness — and concern — about the proposal. As a result, banks from Denver to Philadelphia say they are being deluged with calls, emails and in-person complaints from both savers and small-business owners worried about the proposal. JPMorgan Chase & Company has issued talking points to bank tellers on what to tell angry customers who call or come into a branch to complain.

© Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times The Internal Revenue Service in Washington. The I.R.S. would receive data for bank accounts with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600 under the proposal.

Sign up for The Morning newsletter from The New York Times

Load Error

"We have heard a lot from our customers about their concerns about their privacy," said Jill Castilla, the chief executive of the one-branch Citizens Bank of Edmond, just outside Oklahoma City. "I've gotten calls, emails, and then we've had many customers come in."

Banks already submit tax forms to the I.R.S. about the interest that customer accounts accrue. But the new proposal would require they share information about account balances so that the I.R.S. can see if there are large discrepancies between the income people and businesses report and what they have in the bank. The I.R.S. could audit or investigate the gaps to see if those taxpayers are evading their obligations.

Biden administration officials say the United States needs more information from taxpayers to crack down on those who do not pay what they owe. The measure, which would affect more than 100 million households and millions of businesses, is estimated to capture $460 billion in additional revenue over a decade, primarily from the wealthiest Americans.

"This is a very serious policy proposal," Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen said at a congressional hearing last month. "We have a $7 trillion estimated tax gap that we have a great deal of tax avoidance by individuals and businesses — typically very high-net worth, high-income individuals and businesses that have opaque sources of income that are not paying the taxes that are due."

Treasury officials say the effort is not about tracking individual transactions and is not aimed at lower- or middle-class households. The $600 threshold was chosen to weed out accounts that are generally dormant or get little use, such as children's accounts, while still giving the government the broadest possible visibility. Administration officials say audit rates for taxpayers who earn less than $400,000 per year will not go up.

"This is about making sure the top 1 percent can't evade $160 billion per year in taxes," said Alexandra LaManna, a Treasury Department spokeswoman.

Top Democrats say that empowering the I.R.S. is key to making the economy more fair. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has warned that the I.R.S. is handicapped when it comes to tracking the income of the wealthiest.

"The kinds of income that the I.R.S. has the least visibility into are the kinds of income that are overwhelmingly concentrated among the very richest taxpayers," Ms. Warren said. "Strengthening information reporting, as well as providing protected and sustained I.R.S. funding, would ensure that we focus enforcement on the biggest fish."

But the pushback is putting pressure on the Biden administration to scale back the proposal. Lawmakers are discussing raising the required disclosure level to $10,000 rather than $600, a Treasury official said, and making taxpayers who are paid through payroll-processing companies exempt from the required reporting. The Treasury estimates that could reduce the amount of money it could recoup to between $200 billion and $250 billion over a decade.

The outcry over the proposed measures stems in large part from a carefully planned lobbying campaign by the banking industry, which has spent months raising awareness and opposition to the plan in cities and towns across the country.

Banks say the reporting requirements would raise their costs and put them in the unenviable position of handing customer information over to the I.R.S.

Top industry trade groups have hammered the proposal in emails and phone calls to members. They have argued their case in meetings with senior administration officials, including Ms. Yellen and Charles P. Rettig, who runs the I.R.S. They established a social media hashtag, #KeepMyBankingPrivate, that some executives have used in sharing their doubts about the proposal.

"We proudly join @ICBA and others in telling Congress that we serve our customers, not the IRS," Bankcda, whose main branch is in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, wrote in a recent Twitter post tagging the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group that caters to smaller banks and is helping to lead opposition to the measure.

After the initiative made its first appearance deep in the Treasury's annual budget proposal in May, the American Bankers Association said it and its state-level partner groups quickly heard from hundreds of member banks, raising questions about the idea and its implications. The Independent Community Bankers of America began flagging the potential changes to its members, prompting many of them in turn to alert their customers.

Trade groups also helped gather signatures for a Sept. 17 letter to congressional leaders complaining about the proposal.

"Indiscriminate, blanket data collection would amount to a troubling effort to profile American taxpayers based on account characteristics without grounds for suspicion of tax evasion," the letter argued. It was signed by more than 40 business groups, including the Mortgage Bankers Association, Global Cold Chain Alliance and Foodservice Equipment Distributors Association.

Awareness of the proposal has been amplified by ad campaigns, conservative news media coverage and Facebook posts, including one that caught the attention of Crystal Causey, a 39-year-old advertising account executive in Los Angeles.

"I wouldn't allow my husband or my parents to monitor my bank account activity," she said in an email. "There's no way I would be OK with the government monitoring it."

Industry representatives say it is unusual to see banks communicate with their account holders on a political matter. "This is the first time in 20 years that I've seen that banks have reached out to inform their customers on an issue" like this, said Paul Merski, who runs congressional relations for the community bankers association.

Jim Reuter, the chief executive of FirstBank near Denver, said concerns about the potential provisions have bubbled up frequently, including over a coffee he had with a small-business owner in early October.

"Their upshot is, 'I pay my taxes, so why would you be sending additional information to the I.R.S.?'" Mr. Reuter recalled. "I said I agree with them. We're in the trust business. And it just goes without saying that sending the customer's information somewhere without giving consent — that's not what we do as a bank."

The proposal's critics have said the I.R.S. appears ill-equipped to process and safeguard such an overwhelming amount of data to actually catch cheats.

"I have to tell you the proposal that has been put forth about expanding the amount of information that the I.R.S. is going to get on private bank accounts has been something I've been asked about at parks, at grocery stores, at convenience stores around the district," Representative Trey Hollingsworth, Republican of Indiana, told Ms. Yellen at the congressional hearing last month. "This has people deeply afraid about the emergence of an apparatus that can be used against them."

J.P. Freire, a spokesman for Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, said Texans were "terrified" of the I.R.S. and that his boss was fielding inquiries about the proposed disclosures from at least three or four constituents every week.

Ms. Castilla, the community banker in Oklahoma, said a local schoolteacher had stopped by her office two weeks ago to share her anxieties about the idea of the government peering into her financial records. She told the teacher she believed the proposal was an overreach, Ms. Castilla recalled, and added that banking associations and Oklahoma's congressional delegation were fighting it.

Even if the dollar threshold were raised to $10,000, Ms. Castilla said, it would still be onerous for her bank. "This would require a massive amount of infrastructure," she said.

Treasury officials say they are flummoxed by the outrage, given that banks of all sizes initially told them they could comply with the rules, which would not take effect until 2024.

"They have made clear during conversations with banks that firms can easily implement a simple proposal like the one under consideration in Congress, and that any compliance costs would be minimal," said Ms. LaManna, the Treasury spokeswoman.

Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft and partners may be compensated if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    2 months ago

Yea or nay??

If they know there's $7T unpaid, why haven't they gone after the deadbeats prior to now???? Isn't that why there IS an IRS?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    2 months ago
If they know there's $7T unpaid, why haven't they gone after the deadbeats prior to now???? Isn't that why there IS an IRS?

They are underfunded and have been for decades. While this thing sounds ominous, they still won't have the resources to do an adequate job will target low hanging fruit to make it look like they are actually doing something. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
2  Snuffy    2 months ago

I don't quite understand if the purpose is to go after the wealthy and businesses, why is the limit for reporting set at $600?  Seems rather low to me. 

And I have to agree with the thrust of the article, this is about privacy rights also.  If I have not broken any tax laws and there is no belief that I have broken any tax laws why would they need to look at my banking transactions. It's like searching for a crime rather than having the suspicion that a crime has been committed and getting a search warrant.  

I see this as nothing more than the opportunity to grow government (again) and to gain more power over the people.  The wealthy and large businesses will do what they have always done is move their money to 'friendlier' locations.  This will then create another large burden on business (banking) which will cost more money which will further inhibit the economy. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Snuffy @2    2 months ago

We the middle and working class are the real targets of this.  I opened small bank savings and debit accounts on line with debit cards.  I’m going to switch my mortgage to twice monthly so that neither payment exceeds the $600.00.  Big purchase go on credit card not related to banks with checking and savings and then pay in small payments over the first 28 days to pay it off rather than all at once. I really have nothing to hide but I oppose this sort of dystopian measure so I’m going to make it harder on them just because on principle. Hopefully other conservatives will do likewise in unison.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    2 months ago

So going after people with unpaid taxes is dystopian to you?

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    2 months ago

I don't think that is going to work. The bill is worded total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600. I know I will get twice a month every month- once in the rent I pay; and again on my monthly credit card payment- I keep a zero balance; but each month I easily pay out $600 plus. I pay my car insurance once every 6 months as well- at least that is well below the $600 range. The way that it is worded it might not make any difference breaking it up into multiple payments. Have more than $600 going out to any one source annually you will be a target.

To help find those funds, the administration wants banks to give the Internal Revenue Service new details on their customers and provide data for accounts with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600.

This is the Democrat's version of Big Brother. They still won't be able to get the rich; but they will be able to get the poor and middle class that don't claim income on things like garage sales; very small businesses that cater to very limited clients and only take cash; and any type of cash gift payment.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.1    2 months ago

Turning the IRS into Big Brother ok with you?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.3    2 months ago

Are you suggesting it's OK for people to get away with not paying taxes?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1    2 months ago

So much better to get the facts straight first.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.6  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.1    2 months ago

In general no but this particular plan yes.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1.7  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    2 months ago

It’s still possible to have multiple accounts and limit each to $500 a month. It just means not using the same account to pay the utilities and boy gas and groceries and to make the mortgage payments from two different accounts. Resistance is not futile. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.7    2 months ago
It’s still possible to have multiple accounts and limit each to $500 a month.

Annual!   Read the seed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.6    2 months ago

So you support tax evasion then. Got it

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.1.10  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.1    2 months ago
So going after people with unpaid taxes is dystopian to you?

Tracking my every expenditure is.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.4    2 months ago
Are you suggesting it's OK for people to get away with not paying taxes?

I'm suggesting it's not OK for the government to enact such stringent surveillance.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.10    2 months ago

I tend to think the IRS is more concerned about income than expenditures. Unless there are questionable expenses.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.11    2 months ago

Why not? If there is 7 TRILLION in unpaid taxes, then clearly stricter measures are necessary. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.1.14  Jack_TX  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.1.7    2 months ago
It’s still possible to have multiple accounts and limit each to $500 a month. It just means not using the same account to pay the utilities and boy gas and groceries and to make the mortgage payments from two different accounts. Resistance is not futile

You wish it was $500/mo.  The proposal is for $600/yr.  That's $50/mo. 

Which is utter and complete bullshit because everybody with $10million or more is simply going to move (more)  money overseas.  Meanwhile, the "little people" will have a new and ridiculous level of government surveillance introduced into their lives. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.15  Ronin2  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.14    2 months ago

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

The IRS isn't going after the uber rich; they will be going after those that are doing garage sales for extra profit- cash only of course- who deposit that money into banks w/o paying taxes on it. They are going for the very small time cash only side business. They don't make nearly enough money to pay for and maintain a business license; and pay an accountant to do their taxes to get their money back from the government because they didn't earn nearly enough.  They are going after those that get cash gifts, instead of presents, from family members on birthdays and holidays. 

Instead of putting their money into a bank for safety and security (maybe even earn a little interest); they will have to hold that money where they live. Better still they will have to pay cash for any purchases they make outside of the norm. I am sure criminals will love all of the extra cash floating around unprotected. All thanks to Sleepy Lyin China Joe; and the big government Fascist Democrats.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.13    2 months ago
Why not? If there is 7 TRILLION in unpaid taxes, then clearly stricter measures are necessary.

Because math. 

Because there isn't any way the bottom 90% of American households could possibly account for more than a microscopic amount of that, and everybody knows it.

Yet the Democrats, in their traditional first two years of batshit overreach, want to inspect everybody's activity.  They're proving again that they really do think we're fucking stupid and will put up with anything as long as they give away some free shit.

And this bullshit about:   

"This is about making sure the top 1 percent can't evade $160 billion per year in taxes," said Alexandra LaManna, a Treasury Department spokeswoman.

Is a crock of shit so big even Donald Trump would shy away from it.

If this was about the 1% and you were only looking for your lost $7 trillion, you'd start at a $50,000 threshold, or you'd modify the current AML regulations at $10k.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.12    2 months ago
I tend to think the IRS is more concerned about income than expenditures. Unless there are questionable expenses.

The IRS may well be, but the Biden Administration seems concerned with expenditures, too.

The $600 is just a bullshit number, as almost all people will easily exceed that number, especially if they are employed or on SS or disability.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.2  evilgenius  replied to  Snuffy @2    2 months ago
If I have not broken any tax laws and there is no belief that I have broken any tax laws why would they need to look at my banking transactions.

They are looking for people who are skirting tax laws, by getting paid via cash, bitcoin or smart phone apps. For the record, I don't like it anymore than you do.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Snuffy @2    2 months ago
I don't quite understand if the purpose is to go after the wealthy and businesses, why is the limit for reporting set at $600?  Seems rather low to me. 

Y'think?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3  TᵢG    2 months ago
When the Biden administration looked for ways to pay for the president's expansive social policy bill, it proposed raising revenue by cracking down on $7 trillion in unpaid taxes, mostly from wealthy Americans and businesses.
...

"This is about making sure the top 1 percent can't evade $160 billion per year in taxes," said Alexandra LaManna, a Treasury Department spokeswoman.

...

To help find those funds, the administration wants banks to give the Internal Revenue Service new details on their customers and provide data for accounts with total annual deposits or withdrawals worth more than $600

This is cracking down mostly on wealthy Americans and businesses yet the IRS cares about annual deposits/withdrawals of more then $600 per year.   Someone banking at a rate of more that $600 per year is on the radar?   How about banking at a rate of more than $600,000 per year?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
3.1  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @3    2 months ago
Someone banking at a rate of more that $600 per year is on the radar?   How about banking at a rate of more than $600,000 per year?

The IRS already looks at transactions $10K or more under terrorism laws. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  evilgenius @3.1    2 months ago

The 10k is a per transaction and as you said to counter payments being laundered for terrorists as well as drug traffickers. They could reduce that number to $5k rather than open up everyone’s accounts.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.1.1    2 months ago
They could reduce that number to $5k rather than open up everyone’s accounts.

They don't need to reduce it to $5k.  $7trillion in tax avoidance doesn't happen in $5k increments.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
3.1.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.2    2 months ago

Tax avoidance is not tax evasion

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.3    2 months ago

Regardless, people with $10million are not doing either in increments of $5k.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1.5  XXJefferson51  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.3    one month ago

True.  There is a huge difference.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @3    2 months ago
The measure, which would affect more than 100 million households and millions of businesses, is estimated to capture $460 billion in additional revenue over a decade, primarily from the wealthiest Americans.

$460 billion over a decade from the wealthiest and this involves almost 100 million households.     Households??   The USA has about 122 million households in total.   How does going after 100 / 122 or 82% of US households translate into 'the wealthest'?

$460 billion over a decade??

This does not compute.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    2 months ago

You're right, it really does not compute.

The measure, which would affect more than 100 million households and millions of businesses, is estimated to capture $460 billion in additional revenue over a decade, primarily from the wealthiest Americans.

And from Reuters...

The U.S. government is losing some $1 trillion in unpaid taxes every year 

So they estimate they will collect an average of $46 billion a year. But they also estimate they lose $1 trillion a year.  So that's a HUGE net loss...

And how much is this added reporting requirements going to cost both the direct consumer (banks & banking customers) as well as act as a drain on the economy? When you take money out for the execution of such a program, it is not money that is then going into the economy after all. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    2 months ago
The measure, which would affect more than 100 million households and millions of businesses, is estimated to capture $460 billion in additional revenue over a decade, primarily from the wealthiest Americans.

I believe what this means is that more than 100 million households would be effected by the new law, (because everyone employed will make at least that low amount per year) while the money they hope to recover will be from the wealthiest families only.

I find it odd that they claim all this evasion is going on but can't catch them doing it?

To me, it is like counting illegal aliens. Who really knows? And why should they be believed when they tell us this number or that number?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.3  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.2    2 months ago
I believe what this means is that more than 100 million households would be effected by the new law ...

Yes, ~100 million households would be affected.

I find it odd that they claim all this evasion is going on but can't catch them doing it?

All sorts of small-scale evasion routinely takes place.   Most of the small construction contractors routinely use cash to help avoid paying taxes.   IMO if they did not do so, they would go out of business due to low margins.    Also, how many housekeepers, etc. work on a cash basis?   

Going after these people, who largely are paycheck-to-paycheck is, IMO, misguided.   If the government wants to crack down on income tax evasion (as well as legal but excessive avoidance) then they should do what they advertise and focus on the 1%.   If the 'wealthy' are to pay their 'fair share' then why go after Joe 6-Pack's local remodeling business?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    2 months ago
Going after these people, who largely are paycheck-to-paycheck is, IMO, misguided.   If the government wants to crack down on income tax evasion (as well as legal but excessive avoidance) then they should do what they advertise and focus on the 1%.   If the 'wealthy' are to pay their 'fair share' then why go after Joe 6-Pack's local remodeling business?

Oh, I agree that this is some hare-brained scheme.

Progressive liberals apparently haven't thought this through.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.2.5  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.3    2 months ago
Going after these people, who largely are paycheck-to-paycheck is, IMO, misguided.

The unintended but utterly foreseeable consequence of this will be to push these people away from banks.  The "unbanked" are traditionally the most economically vulnerable of American society, so by all means we should add to their ranks as aggressively as possible.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.6  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.4    one month ago

Fortunately the treasurers of several states are opposing this threatening to take it to the Supreme Court if need be on 4th amendment privacy grounds among others.  The proposal would affect every American household with income and a bank account.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @3    2 months ago

original

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
3.3.1  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @3.3    2 months ago

Once again late to the party and off topic as usual.

I take it you are OK with the Democrats plan that will use the IRS to target low and middle income tax payers? Despite their forked tongued assurances.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
4  Nerm_L    2 months ago

Technocrats always think more data is the answer.  It's a way for smart stupid people to kick the can.

An expectation that this proposal will increase revenue by $460 billion over a decade ($46 billion per year) won't do anything to address trillion dollar deficits.  And the added cost to collect and process the data will eat up most of the revenue that's obtained.  It's highly unlikely the wealthy are using commercial banking to avoid taxes anyway.  Yellin's proposal is to spend a dollar of someone else's money to get a nickel.

There are two problems.  The first is a tax code so contorted and perverted that no one (including the IRS) really knows how much taxes are owed.  The wealthy are using the tax code to avoid taxes; tax avoidance is built into the tax code.  The second is a government that spends money without regard for revenue.  Technocrats collecting more data won't address either of those problems.

Reinstating Glass-Steagall would do more than Yellin's proposal.  Fiduciary requirements would do more than Yellin's proposal.  But financial technocrats don't want to do anything that would regulate Wall Street.  These financial wizards will kill the working class before interfering with the ability of the wealthy to cheat.  In finance, cheaters always win.  Cheating is the business model for investment banking and finance.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

Given the IRS's long history of abusing it's power, how could anyone possibly think this is a good idea?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
6  Hallux    2 months ago

Another take on the issue:

Republicans Mischaracterize Proposed Financial Reporting Requirement

Also:

Fact check: Claim about the IRS monitoring bank accounts over $600 exaggerates reality

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
Freshman Participates
6.1  Transyferous Rex  replied to  Hallux @6    2 months ago
“Well, $600 threshold is not usually where you’re going to find the massive amount of tax revenue you think Americans are cheating you out of,” Lummis fired back. “That’s correct,” Yellen admitted, “but it’s important to have comprehensive information so that individuals can’t game the system and have multiple accounts.”

To use the local terminology, that's a shit ton of "gaming the system" for a person trying to hide their side hustle that grosses 10k annually. Granted, there may be taxes to pay on a $10,000 a year side hustle, and I'm not condoning hiding it. There is a difference in needing a 1099 for $600 or more earned from a prize, non-employer, etc., and flagging accounts that see $600+ in activity over a given year though.

As to the factcheck sites...

We rate the claim that the Treasury Department 'declares' the IRS will monitor transactions in all U.S. bank accounts over $600 as PARTLY FALSE, based on our research. The Biden Administration has proposed monitoring accounts over $600, but the only figures reported to the government would be the total inflows and outflows for the year – not the size and nature of each transaction. And the Treasury can't simply "declare" this measure, it must be approved by Congress.

1st, proposals turn into rules. 2nd...Great, so the IRS won't know where the money was spent, or where it came from...until it audits your ass. Here's the scenario again. I have a garage sale, I deposit the proceeds of the sale into my regular account, because I'm not one of these nefarious bastards that has over 21 accounts to hide $12,000.00. The only monies in and out of my account are my wages (which are already reported) and my garage sale proceeds. Now, the IRS is auditing my ass, nevermind the fact that I took a loss at the garage sale, because my account ledger doesn't match my pay stubs. Let's not forget the IRS is now spending thousands on agents to sift through my shit, when it will not net any return. If they want to waste money, paying for someone to look for something, they can pay me $65k a year to search my property for gold. I'll turn every bit I find over to the feds.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
7  MonsterMash    2 months ago

If you pay check is directly deposited, if you're on social security you'll exceed the annual $600 in a month. If you use your banking account to pay your bills you'll exceed the $600. In other words every American with a banking account will become a IRS target. Why does Biden want to spy on everyday average Americans?

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
7.1  Sunshine  replied to  MonsterMash @7    2 months ago

The retirees are all tax evaders and domestic terrorist too.  I believe AARP is in cahoots with them. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

GregTx
JBB


49 visitors