4 ms·
After reflection, my guess is it would be that in those neighborhoods they have identified a largely 'paid in cash, under-reported' behavior. For example, if na
by czbond 6y ago
After reflection, my guess is it would be that in those neighborhoods they have identified a largely 'paid in cash, under-reported' behavior. For example, if nationally a person with "career x" makes $45k, yet reports $18k - it could be worth a look. There are large segments that do this (right or wrong) - and is one underlying benefit the govt believes of going all digital.
I can see how from their standpoint focusing on cash audits of unsophisticated businesses setups are easier than complicated, diverse, experience heavy audits.
- renewiltord 6y agoIt feels a bit like you've assumed that what the IRS is doing is optimal and then working back from that to produce a theory for why they act this way. Considering it is a bureaucracy that is vulnerable to political machinations I don't think the assumption is necessarily valid.
- czbond 6y agoMy assumption is not empirically correct, I agree, but neither is the belief that IRS audits of mass populations is politically motivated. It is simply ease, right? Easier to audit where it is easy returns, or where one will get a high return (eg: high return of audit hours vs audit returns). Similar to how people often suggest police can 'issue more fines' for speeding (easy, high volume) than for difficult crimes requiring risk and time.
- renewiltord 6y agoRight, I feel like the unspoken assumption is that we've created an environment where low-likelihood high-reward financial crimes are hard to prosecute and in that environment I find what you're saying easy to believe.