4 ms·
> Not to mention having fewer resources to fight if you are audited. Can't find the link now, but I read somewhere that the IRS avoids audits if the risk of lo
by SaltyBackendGuy 5y ago
> Not to mention having fewer resources to fight if you are audited.
Can't find the link now, but I read somewhere that the IRS avoids audits if the risk of losing is higher (i.e. the person in question has more resources to fight it $). So their enforcement is heavily skewed towards average people.
Which corroborates this statement.
> more modest means is more likely to attract attention
- ASalazarMX 5y agoPoor IRS, if only it had some good government contacts, it could ask them to improve the law and close those loopholes. Oh well.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mrguyorama 5y agoThe reason the IRS takes this tactic is it is literally underfunded. It does not have enough money to go after every millionaire and fight those court battles, even though there's a near certainty that it was in the legal right and enforcement of that type would bring back multiple dollars for every dollar spent on enforcement. The IRS does this calculus every single year, submits it as a report to the legislature, and then often has it's budget cut