KD in CA Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Turning the IRS dogs loose I wonder how many jobs this will create or save!
pBills Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 So they are auditing / verifying they received the correct amount? Ok.
/dev/null Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Turning the IRS dogs loose I wonder how many jobs this will create or save! 6000 audits will help employ a few more IRS agents and even some private sector accountants and lawyers. If we're lucky the audits might turn up some additional revenue to offset a fraction of the cost of a study to see how much revenue they would gain
VABills Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Does random = only those business that support republican candidates. Much like the GM dealerships that were shut down. 90% supported Mccain openly, while almost none who supported barry were shut down.
pBills Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Does random = only those business that support republican candidates. Much like the GM dealerships that were shut down. 90% supported Mccain openly, while almost none who supported barry were shut down. Conspiracy theories got to love them.
IDBillzFan Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Turning the IRS dogs loose I wonder how many jobs this will create or save! I love the opening sentence. The “tax gap” is the difference between what the IRS collects and what it thinks it is owed. That makes me feel really good.
meazza Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Does random = only those business that support republican candidates. Much like the GM dealerships that were shut down. 90% supported Mccain openly, while almost none who supported barry were shut down. Do you have any ... "proof"? Thanks
VABills Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Do you have any ... "proof"? Thanks http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...s-46261447.html
KD in CA Posted February 18, 2010 Author Posted February 18, 2010 So they are auditing / verifying they received the correct amount? Ok. Well, if you are a complete simpleton who thinks both tax law and enforcement of tax law is always black and white, I'm sure it all sounds great. Those who understand the real world better than a piece of toast might have noticed this: The NRP audits will focus on four areas: employee classification, fringe benefits, expense reimbursements and compensation paid to owners. The first one is the biggie. State govts that have bankrupt themselves (esp. NY and CA) have already started down this path. Basically going after any business that uses independent contractors. They are "reinterpreting" existing guidelines so that they can claim all IC are employees, enabling them to hammer companies with huge bills for past unemployment insurance. The IRS will do the same thing in an attempt to charge SS tax on non-employees. This will enable the gubmint to 'increase revenues' and is just another tactic in the endless tax-and-spend cycle. Of course, it's also in lock-step with the Obama Big Labor playbook (you can't unionize ICs). But let's keep pretending that forcing businesses to defend themselves from endless government attacks doesn't hurt job creation.
keepthefaith Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Well, if you are a complete simpleton who thinks both tax law and enforcement of tax law is always black and white, I'm sure it all sounds great. Those who understand the real world better than a piece of toast might have noticed this: The first one is the biggie. State govts that have bankrupt themselves (esp. NY and CA) have already started down this path. Basically going after any business that uses independent contractors. They are "reinterpreting" existing guidelines so that they can claim all IC are employees, enabling them to hammer companies with huge bills for past unemployment insurance. The IRS will do the same thing in an attempt to charge SS tax on non-employees. This will enable the gubmint to 'increase revenues' and is just another tactic in the endless tax-and-spend cycle. Of course, it's also in lock-step with the Obama Big Labor playbook (you can't unionize ICs). But let's keep pretending that forcing businesses to defend themselves from endless government attacks doesn't hurt job creation. As someone who went through a business audit a year ago, I can tell you that it's not fun. However, if you're closet is clean (as ours was) it is quite satisfying to know that. In our case the cost to taxpayers for the audit (3 years were reviewed) was less than what they recovered from us. Significantly less. The definition of ICs is vague, but any company that hires people on that basis should know that they might at some time have to defend that decision. I noticed that the article says nothing about illegal immigrant employees. That should be a big target as well, but not by this administration.
KD in CA Posted February 18, 2010 Author Posted February 18, 2010 As someone who went through a business audit a year ago, I can tell you that it's not fun. However, if you're closet is clean (as ours was) it is quite satisfying to know that. In our case the cost to taxpayers for the audit (3 years were reviewed) was less than what they recovered from us. Significantly less. The definition of ICs is vague, but any company that hires people on that basis should know that they might at some time have to defend that decision. The issue is they are changing the rules to suit current political and fiscal needs. I had an auditor from NYS tell me flat out that her boss told her to 'find revenue', not 'make sure people are complying with the law'. We're not talking about catching tax cheats like Charlie Rangal, we're talking about legal practices coming under attack because the gov't can't stick to a budget. I noticed that the article says nothing about illegal immigrant employees. That should be a big target as well, but not by this administration. Of course not, you can't win the Hispanic vote by enforcing those laws.
Alaska Darin Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Those who understand the real world better than a piece of toast might have noticed this: Let me go ahead and respond for him: GOOGLE! WIKIPEDIA! Qualifications!
pBills Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Let me go ahead and respond for him: GOOGLE! WIKIPEDIA! Qualifications! Still playing your dumb games I see. Bravo!!
KD in CA Posted February 18, 2010 Author Posted February 18, 2010 Let me go ahead and respond for him: GOOGLE! WIKIPEDIA! Qualifications! Don't pick on pBrain. If it's not a Sarah Palin or FoxNews thread, he doesn't get the chance to participate beyond his initial clueless assumptions.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 War on business = The problem is he is getting pulled from both directions. He is getting eaten alive!
GG Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 War on business = The problem is he is getting pulled from both directions. He is getting eaten alive! That usually happens when your official platform is hope, with nothing tangible behind it. Ask a dog what a car bumper is like when he catches up with it.
Adam Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 I love the opening sentence.The “tax gap” is the difference between what the IRS collects and what it thinks it is owed. That makes me feel really good. Scared me for a second too- then I realized I could still get a nice pair of pants without getting taxed too much
pBills Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 That usually happens when your official platform is hope, with nothing tangible behind it. Ask a dog what a car bumper is like when he catches up with it. Just think, it could have been the other way. McCains platform of nothing and well, nothing tangible behind it.
Chef Jim Posted February 18, 2010 Posted February 18, 2010 Just think, it could have been the other way. McCains platform of nothing and well, nothing tangible behind it. I think that's why most of us "smart" people voted "none of the above".
keepthefaith Posted February 19, 2010 Posted February 19, 2010 Scared me for a second too- then I realized I could still get a nice pair of pants without getting taxed too much http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586581,00.html Apparently this guy thought he was taxed too much.
Recommended Posts