3 ms·

The IRS rarely prosecutes high earners because it's expensive and it's possible they fail. Once you get out of simple W2 and 1099 income things get real compli

The IRS rarely prosecutes high earners because it's expensive and it's possible they fail. Once you get out of simple W2 and 1099 income things get real complicated real fast. So complicated the IRS can get it wrong themselves. The more complicated the return, the more subjective they become. When the rules are so complex or the terms so vague that things can be left up to interpretation or they do not capture all edge cases it becomes very easy to end up in a scenario where you have to prove intent to commit fraud if you really want to prosecute. There is no doubt that the IRS leaves plenty of money on the table by not pursuing more high earners, but who wants to do the hard work when the easy work is just to compare reported W2 and 1099 income statements with returns? If we wanted to get serious about going after high earners we would simplify the tax code. We'd get rid of certain carry overs all together. At some point we may even tax revenue instead of profits. That might sound wildly "anti-capitalist" but it's the only way to eliminate the ambiguity. We could create different incentives that reverse the burden. I can think of a funny example I saw the other day where some dope was telling people they can deduct their dog as a business expense if they work from home because the dog is a "guard dog". The thing is you actually can do this. If you do this with any old dog it obviously would not hold up… but where is the line? How much training does a dog need to be considered a guard dog? How many hours a day is the dog actually guarding? You going to interview the dog? What if the dog dies or runs away? The IRS is not going to scrutinize every dog. There are a ridiculous amount of things just like this that people write off as expenses. If you want to successfully prosecute you've got to really make the case that it was intentional—like that there was no dog at all. Otherwise it's just difficult, and there's so much lower hanging fruit. You want to go back and forth over a dog with or just go after this person who failed to report a PayPal transaction? The latter is so much easier. Guaranteed win.

chii 4y ago
> you've got to really make the case that it was intentional—like that there was no dog at all which would be easy, as an animal ought to have been registered and thus have a registration from which an easy check should've been possible. If the tax code deems that expenses such as a guard dog is something that can be deducted, then why is the nuance relevant at all? It's a dog, and it does guarding duties during business hours. Whether it performed the guarding duties well or not is also irrelevant - the expense of a dog would be the same whether they do guarding well, or sloppily. So the only opportunity for such fraud is if the dog didn't exist, and thus you're not really paying the expenses associated with said dog. I fail to see why having a dog and being able to expense it from your income is such a big deal. Edit: in fact, i personally would like to see the tax code simplified, so that each human can claim _all_ expenses for living, from their income, and only ever get taxed on profits (which is money they did not consume).

chii 4y ago

> you've got to really make the case that it was intentional—like that there was no dog at all which would be easy, as an animal ought to have been registered and thus have a registration from which an easy check should've been possible. If the tax code deems that expenses such as a guard dog is something that can be deducted, then why is the nuance relevant at all? It's a dog, and it does guarding duties during business hours. Whether it performed the guarding duties well or not is also irrelevant - the expense of a dog would be the same whether they do guarding well, or sloppily. So the only opportunity for such fraud is if the dog didn't exist, and thus you're not really paying the expenses associated with said dog. I fail to see why having a dog and being able to expense it from your income is such a big deal. Edit: in fact, i personally would like to see the tax code simplified, so that each human can claim _all_ expenses for living, from their income, and only ever get taxed on profits (which is money they did not consume).