4 ms·
Well, the article they link to in April explains this to at least some degree, doesn't it? https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit https://projects
by chipotle_coyote 7y ago
Well, the article they link to in April explains this to at least some degree, doesn't it?
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/eitc-audit
"As we reported last year, the IRS audits EITC recipients at higher rates than all but the richest Americans, a response to pressure from congressional Republicans to root out incorrect payments of the credit. The study estimates that Humphreys [County, Mississippi], with a median annual household income of just $26,000, is audited at a rate 51 percent higher than Loudoun County, Virginia, which boasts a median income of $130,000, the highest in the country."
The article doesn't define rich as "the top 1% of taxpayers"; it simply notes that EITC recipients are audited more frequently than all but that top 1%.
"The five counties with the highest audit rates are all predominantly African American, rural counties in the Deep South. The audit rate is also very high in South Texas’ largely Hispanic counties and in counties with Native American reservations, such as in South Dakota. Primarily poor, white counties, such as those in eastern Kentucky in Appalachia, also have elevated audit rates.
"The states with the lowest audit rates tend to be home to middle income, largely white populations: places like New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Generally, the IRS audits taxpayers with household income between $50,000 and $100,000 the least."
From the article more directly linked with the clickbaity headline, in fact, that headline is also supported if you keep reading the article:
"On the one hand, the IRS said, auditing poor taxpayers is a lot easier: The agency uses relatively low-level employees to audit returns for low-income taxpayers who claim the earned income tax credit. The audits — of which there were about 380,000 last year, accounting for 39% of the total the IRS conducted — are done by mail and don’t take too much staff time, either. They are 'the most efficient use of available IRS examination resources,' [IRS Commissioner Charles] Rettig’s report says.
"On the other hand, auditing the rich is hard. It takes senior auditors hours upon hours to complete an exam. What’s more, the letter says, 'the rate of attrition is significantly higher among these more experienced examiners.' As a result, the budget cuts have hit this part of the IRS particularly hard."