5 ms·
I'm surprised at the large sums of money the IRS was willing to send out with essentially zero validation. These people were claiming they had paid the IRS mil
by drakenot 7y ago
I'm surprised at the large sums of money the IRS was willing to send out with essentially zero validation.
These people were claiming they had paid the IRS millions of dollars and were due massive refunds, but there is nothing in place to check what the IRS has actually received from individuals before cutting 6-7 figure checks?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- clubm8 7y agoEspecially since... how long did it take them to notice? Hypothetically someone could get these funds into their account, transfer them offshore, flee the country, and probably live out their life in a low cost of living area without extradition. They seem to assume if there's an error they can drag the person into court, but if you have ~3 million you've changed into gold/diamonds/cash it'd be very hard to catch you...
- giancarlostoro 7y agoThe alternative is a system like Google's infamous autobanning. Being jailed because the IRS AI / software says you owe them millions and have refused to pay. All due to some software bug. Great read: https://idiallo.com/blog/when-a-machine-fired-me https://idiallo.com/blog/when-a-machine-fired-me
- OnlineGladiator 7y agoThe alternative is we better fund and support the IRS. If ever there was a government branch that would clearly return more money than invested, it is obviously the IRS.
- scarejunba 7y agoUSA: Issues convoluted tax code so that the only way to do it right is use software. Doesn’t validate results. Everyone else: Just have the government handle tax filing USA: loses 3 million to scammer Everyone else: ... USA: the only other way is auto-banning using AI
- brianwawok 7y agoUSA: makers of tax software donate millions to help politicians run for office Everyone else: don’t allow unlimited donations by corporations to political offices
- apta 7y agoActual solution: don't allow any donations by corporations (or anyone) to political offices.
- Spooky23 7y agoNo the alternative is to fund and allow the agency to be competent. States manage to be much better.
- xyzzyz 7y agoThere are lots and lots of legitimate refunds of this quantity. IRS doesn't have enough resources to look too hard at each one of them, as the wait time for refunds would then be unacceptable.
- m11a 7y agoSure. But a computer can check/crosscheck this. If someone wins a lottery, for example, I imagine the lottery provider has to send an IRS form. A computer can easily crosscheck to see if a form exists with that amount. If not, manual review. Similarly, a simple cross-check to see if the refund is feasible considering the other filings by the same individual/entity. Certain refunds cannot be cross-checked as easily by a computer (eg reclaiming VAT on purchased goods). But basic refund fraud on lotteries? That shouldn't really be a thing in almost 2020.
- xyzzyz 7y ago> Similarly, a simple cross-check to see if the refund is feasible considering the other filings by the same individual/entity. I presume that it's how they ultimately caught them. Overall, I think that while your suggestions obviously make sense, it's probably pretty hard to theorize like this without knowing the reality on the ground. Maybe implementing systems like this is very slow and very expensive (like everything US government does), so we'll need to wait a few more years. Maybe it would result in too many false positives, which would seriously degrade its value. Maybe people who could implement this simply don't care, because it's not their money being stolen.
- boublepop 7y agoNo matter the quantities and amounts, any system or process where “I payed you X give it back” results in performing a payment without checking the assertion is fundamentally flawed. If you can’t prove the assertion don’t make the payment, no matter how many months that means people might have to wait.
- zingermc 7y agoEh, I see this as a form of eventual consistency.