3 ms·
If I remember correctly, a lot of it was traced to divorced parents claiming the children on both tax refunds which this law did away with, only the person with
by AtheistOfFail 10y ago
If I remember correctly, a lot of it was traced to divorced parents claiming the children on both tax refunds which this law did away with, only the person with most/solo custody can claim the children now.
- Spooky23 10y agoMy grand uncle claimed his dog for years.
- acdha 10y agoThe snopes.com link above quotes this towards the bottom: ”The tax agency said about 20 percent of the vanished dependents were children who had been claimed as dependents by both parents after a divorce. Under the law, only one parent may claim the child as a deduction. Most of the others probably never existed, John Szilagyi, an I.R.S. researcher, said. And some families apparently became quite greedy in creating dependents, each worth a $1,080 deduction in 1986, and $1,900 in 1987. About 66,000 taxpayers who claimed four or more dependents in 1986 claimed none in 1987, after the Social Security identification rule went into effect. And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987.”
- AtheistOfFail 10y ago> And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987. So, big lie, you mean. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
- acdha 10y agoThat doesn't seem relevant to this thread?
- AtheistOfFail 10y agoIt is, it's a technique where the bigger the lie, the harder to dispute.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cauterized 10y agoWow, that's a lot of septuplets graduating high school!