IRS Drastically Increases Its Audits Of Richest Taxpayers

LadyJazzer wrote: And every time you have used "ILLEGAL" (I assume in the context of "illegal aliens"?), I have agreed with you. My position on ILLEGAL aliens has never changed.

On the other hand, you seem to be unable to deal with one topic at a time... We're talking about TAX CHEATS. If you want to go off on some tangent about some ridiculous number of allegedly "high paying jobs", feel free to start your own thread.

ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE ILLEGAL TAX CHEATS....

It very well MIGHT mean an audit for me... (Although, I haven't crossed the $1-million mark yet.) Y'know what? I'm not scared of an audit, because I report all my income, and can prove everything that's on my return.

How about you? You report every dollar you make with your side-business? You ready for an audit?

Paying the taxes that one legitimately OWES is not "squeezing every penny". If you're in the $1-million/year range, you'd better already have some pretty good CPA's. You want to play games and cut corners and look for ILLEGAL ways to shield your income? I hope they bust your chops and hit you with penalties & interest too.

Great stance you are taking but you have yet to answer the question, no real shock there.

What question?...About the "1,000 new jobs"? I re-read my original post,and the link to it...Sorry, I don't see anything about "1,000 new high paying jobs"... Unless you have a link to prove it, there is no question for me to answer.

On the other hand, if the IRS DOES, in fact, hire 1,000 new agents, here is a rough breakdown on the return-on-investment that they get from IRS auditor salaries:

Overall, the IRS increased the percentage of audits by about 11 percent from the year prior. That means 1.58 million tax returns -- about 1.11 percent of all returns filed -- were audited, costing the IRS about 53 cents per $100 collected -- a 3 cent increase from 2009.

So, for every 53-cents spent on an auditor, they bring in $100 in collected taxes that were owed. That sounds like an investment, not an "expense" to me.

Speaking of unanswered questions: Do YOU report all of your income from your side-business, and are YOU ready for an audit?

LadyJazzer wrote: What question?...About the "1,000 new jobs"? I re-read my original post,and the link to it...Sorry, I don't see anything about "1,000 new high paying jobs"... Unless you have a link to prove it, there is no question for me to answer.

On the other hand, if the IRS DOES, in fact, hire 1,000 new agents, here is a rough breakdown on the return-on-investment that they get from IRS auditor salaries:

Overall, the IRS increased the percentage of audits by about 11 percent from the year prior. That means 1.58 million tax returns -- about 1.11 percent of all returns filed -- were audited, costing the IRS about 53 cents per $100 collected -- a 3 cent increase from 2009.

So, for every 53-cents spent on an auditor, they bring in $100 in collected taxes that were owed. That sounds like an investment, not an "expense" to me.

Speaking of unanswered questions: Do YOU report all of your income from your side-business, and are YOU ready for an audit?

[crickets chirping]

The Viking wrote:

CriticalBill wrote: For once I agree with LJ, the loopholes these comanpies like GE are so good at finding need to be fixed. I have no problem with any company big or small making profits...even huge profits as long as they pay their taxes like the rest of us.

That is fine but look at our tax rates for corporations here. How does this encourage people to keep their companies in the US? Our corporate tax rate is almost 40%. If you moved it to Switlerland it is only 21% and if you more your corporation to Ireland it is only 12.5%. If your corporation made $100 million for example that is a savings of 19-27 million MORE to be able to help people with if you were in one of those nations rather than the United States. In the US they sneeze that much away ever minute as waste! Until our government wakes up, I have no problem supporting companies that move overseas. I am more pro American than most but more anti US government that most too. We are one of the only nations to not LOWER our corporate tax rate as our government is a wasteful geedy broken system.

http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/200 ... ntry-oecd/

Amid rising concerns about the state of the U.S. economy, new data compiled by economists at the OECD shows that for the 17th consecutive year the average rate of corporate taxes in non-U.S. countries fell while the U.S. corporate tax rate stayed the same. As a result, the overall U.S. corporate tax rate is now 50 percent higher than the OECD average.

Combined with another new OECD study that calls the corporate income tax the most harmful type of tax for economic growth, the implications for U.S. policy are clear. The long-term prospects of the U.S. economy are at risk as long as our corporate tax rate remains out of step with the rest of the world.

The empirical evidence from the new OECD study suggests that “investment is adversely affected by corporate taxation through the user cost of capital,” meaning the after-tax return on investment. Looking at the firm level, OECD economists found that the effect of corporate taxes is strongest on industries that are older and more profitable because of their larger tax bases. Younger and smaller firms (i.e. start-ups) are less affected because they are less profitable.

The OECD study also found that statutory corporate tax rates have a negative effect on firms that are in the “process of catching up with the productivity performance of the best practice firms.” This suggests that “lowering statutory corporate tax rates can lead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth.”


This year, Asian countries have been very aggressive on the tax front. China’s new 25 percent corporate tax rate, down from 33 percent, went into effect in January. Meanwhile, the Korean government has announced that it will cut its corporate rate from 25 percent to 22 percent, Taiwan is considering cutting its 25 percent corporate rate to 17.5 percent, and Hong Kong will cut its rate from 17.5 percent to 16.5 percent. In response to these developments, a Japanese advisory panel has called upon the government to cut Japan’s corporate tax rate to remain competitive and avoid discouraging foreign investment.

I agree with that too Viking, we SHOULD have a much lower corporate tax rate and we would be able to get much more tax revenue because of it. The liberals just don't get that reasoning. But, the tax rate we do have currently should be paid even if it is too high. Maybe we can get get a smart congress and president someday that can see why we are losing corporations left and right to more business friendly countries with lower rates. (not holding my breath)

If I go to the store and see that candy bars are $5.00 each, I can do one of three things, I can pay the high price, I can go to a cheaper store and buy one for $1.00, or I can steal it. I just don't think big companies should be able to elude their tax obligations even if the taxes are too high. Lowering the corp tax rate is just a different subject all together, I could type until my fingers bleed arguing for lower rates but common sense is lacking in Washington.

residenttroll wrote: Flat tax for all individuals and companies/corporations would make it a fair and level playing ground - and keep the feds out of our lives.

but then it would not be "progressive" ...damn I really hate that word these days.

I disagree with a flat tax...it does punish the lower and middle classes which we don't need, especially right now, but I am definitly in favor of redoing our tax code....it has become so complicated that even the tax professionals and the IRS agents cannot fully understand. It needs to be simple, fair, and without loopholes. Those who make modest salaries should be able to pay the minimum owed just as those wealthy taxpayers do now with the help of their high priced tax lawyers and accountants. Corporate tax rates need to be lowered, but again the tax loopholes and complicated codes need to be replaced with a tax code that is simple and applies equally to every corporation.

archer wrote: I disagree with a flat tax...it does punish the lower and middle classes which we don't need, especially right now, but I am definitly in favor of redoing our tax code....it has become so complicated that even the tax professionals and the IRS agents cannot fully understand. It needs to be simple, fair, and without loopholes. Those who make modest salaries should be able to pay the minimum owed just as those wealthy taxpayers do now with the help of their high priced tax lawyers and accountants. Corporate tax rates need to be lowered, but again the tax loopholes and complicated codes need to be replaced with a tax code that is simple and applies equally to every corporation.

The flat tax doesn't punish the lower class - huge myth!

residenttroll wrote:

archer wrote: I disagree with a flat tax...it does punish the lower and middle classes which we don't need, especially right now, but I am definitly in favor of redoing our tax code....it has become so complicated that even the tax professionals and the IRS agents cannot fully understand. It needs to be simple, fair, and without loopholes. Those who make modest salaries should be able to pay the minimum owed just as those wealthy taxpayers do now with the help of their high priced tax lawyers and accountants. Corporate tax rates need to be lowered, but again the tax loopholes and complicated codes need to be replaced with a tax code that is simple and applies equally to every corporation.

The flat tax doesn't punish the lower class - huge myth!

:rofl

This from our resident accountant.....right.