4 ms·

Interesting, who makes that argument?

by clucas 4y ago

willcipriano 4y ago
I can find someone making that case with a quick Google: https://www.april15th.com/irs-problems/why-irs-audits-more-small-businesses-than-big-corporations/ https://www.april15th.com/irs-problems/why-irs-audits-more-s... > The IRS brings in more dollars per hour auditing small mom and pop businesses, than they do auditing medium and large companies. > Why is that the case? Because the larger companies keep impeccable records and have tax experts to defend them; Enrolled Agents, CPAs, or tax attorneys that usually know more about the Tax Code than the IRS auditor-employee. I've found it in my conversations with people justifying the recent increases in IRS agents and the new $600 reporting requirement.
- clucas 4y ago
  Reading that link, it appears they are saying the IRS is concentrates its efforts on small businesses because they have the best chance of recovery. You called it a fairy tale, do you believe that big corporations are actually bigger tax cheats than small businesses, and they're just getting away with it somehow?
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    I do not have any of direct evidence of anything, I'm just a guy with a brain. This is one of many in a long series of "coincidences" that when put together starts to become nonsensical. Look at where we started. Pfizer gets fined more beacuse they are a bigger company and have more surface area, the law is complex and everyone is breaking it all the time so action against them doesn't mean they did anything wrong. In and of itself fine, that may be true. Then those same people will later say, the IRS went after that Mexican restaurant instead of Pfizer beacuse they are so big, and run such a tight ship that it would almost impossible to find any wrong doing. The tax code is very complex, so is drug regulation. Is the idea that Pfizer is hyper competent in tax law but incompetent when it comes to the core business? That doesn't hold water for me.
    - clucas 4y ago
      Maybe you're right, but I think it's more likely that Pfizer, as a business, is more willing to accept risk in the pursuit of its core business aims than in its accounting, and that's all we're seeing. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-call-it-conspiracy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-c...
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        It could also be that the endeavor of drug discovery and manufacture is inherently more risky than accounting. From the academic sense, it is not a field of mathematical certainty, but one of subjective risk-benefit tradeoffs.
transcriptase 4y ago
In Canada it’s a common argument as to why the CRA goes after waitresses for unclaimed tips and similar trivial cases, versus tackling high-net worth and corporate tax evasion/fraud. It comes down to dollars recovered per agent hour as a metric for the government. The average joe can’t afford to tie up the CRA in court for years with high-paid legal teams, which means that their KPI results are negatively correlated with the financial resources of their target. Why spend years potentially recovering millions when you can spend minutes recovering hundreds or thousands with virtually no risk?

Interesting, who makes that argument?

by clucas 4y ago

Interesting, who makes that argument?

I can find someone making that case with a quick Google: https://www.april15th.com/irs-problems/why-irs-audits-more-small-businesses-than-big-corporations/ https://www.april15th.com/irs-problems/why-irs-audits-more-s... > The IRS brings in more dollars per hour auditing small mom and pop businesses, than they do auditing medium and large companies. > Why is that the case? Because the larger companies keep impeccable records and have tax experts to defend them; Enrolled Agents, CPAs, or tax attorneys that usually know more about the Tax Code than the IRS auditor-employee. I've found it in my conversations with people justifying the recent increases in IRS agents and the new $600 reporting requirement.

clucas 4y ago
Reading that link, it appears they are saying the IRS is concentrates its efforts on small businesses because they have the best chance of recovery. You called it a fairy tale, do you believe that big corporations are actually bigger tax cheats than small businesses, and they're just getting away with it somehow?
- willcipriano 4y ago
  I do not have any of direct evidence of anything, I'm just a guy with a brain. This is one of many in a long series of "coincidences" that when put together starts to become nonsensical. Look at where we started. Pfizer gets fined more beacuse they are a bigger company and have more surface area, the law is complex and everyone is breaking it all the time so action against them doesn't mean they did anything wrong. In and of itself fine, that may be true. Then those same people will later say, the IRS went after that Mexican restaurant instead of Pfizer beacuse they are so big, and run such a tight ship that it would almost impossible to find any wrong doing. The tax code is very complex, so is drug regulation. Is the idea that Pfizer is hyper competent in tax law but incompetent when it comes to the core business? That doesn't hold water for me.
  - clucas 4y ago
    Maybe you're right, but I think it's more likely that Pfizer, as a business, is more willing to accept risk in the pursuit of its core business aims than in its accounting, and that's all we're seeing. https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-call-it-conspiracy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/01/14/too-many-people-dare-c...
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      It could also be that the endeavor of drug discovery and manufacture is inherently more risky than accounting. From the academic sense, it is not a field of mathematical certainty, but one of subjective risk-benefit tradeoffs.

transcriptase 4y ago

In Canada it’s a common argument as to why the CRA goes after waitresses for unclaimed tips and similar trivial cases, versus tackling high-net worth and corporate tax evasion/fraud. It comes down to dollars recovered per agent hour as a metric for the government. The average joe can’t afford to tie up the CRA in court for years with high-paid legal teams, which means that their KPI results are negatively correlated with the financial resources of their target. Why spend years potentially recovering millions when you can spend minutes recovering hundreds or thousands with virtually no risk?