3 ms·

> Auditing big whales is often not the most efficient use of resources because their taxes are a) much more complicated, and so more expensive to audit and b) m

> Auditing big whales is often not the most efficient use of resources because their taxes are a) much more complicated, and so more expensive to audit and b) more likely to have been done by a team of competent lawyers, so even though they're engaged in all kinds of shenanigans, the shenanigans are legal and there is no money to be had by auditing them. For "x" hours of work, the big whales can also potentially bring in a lot more money than a bunch of small minnows. Before it got a funding bump, the IRS went after minnows because of resource constraints: > Congress asked the IRS to report on why it audits the poor more than the affluent. Its response is that it doesn’t have enough money and people to audit the wealthy properly. So it’s not going to. * https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-easier-and-cheaper-to-audit-the-poor https://www.propublica.org/article/irs-sorry-but-its-just-ea...

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> For "x" hours of work, the big whales can also potentially bring in a lot more money than a bunch of small minnows. Your article says the opposite: > They [audits of low income people taking the EITC] are “the most efficient use of available IRS examination resources,” Rettig’s report says. They can either hire a lot of cheap low-level examiners to quickly audit a lot of low-income people or a smaller number of expensive examiners to slowly audit big complex returns that are more likely to be correct but have more at stake. They were doing the first one because it recovers more money per enforcement dollar. You can decide that your priority is "audit more rich people" rather than "recover the most money" but that doesn't make them the same thing, or make the first one the only or even default thing they'll do if you give them more enforcement resources.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> For "x" hours of work, the big whales can also potentially bring in a lot more money than a bunch of small minnows. Your article says the opposite: > They [audits of low income people taking the EITC] are “the most efficient use of available IRS examination resources,” Rettig’s report says. They can either hire a lot of cheap low-level examiners to quickly audit a lot of low-income people or a smaller number of expensive examiners to slowly audit big complex returns that are more likely to be correct but have more at stake. They were doing the first one because it recovers more money per enforcement dollar. You can decide that your priority is "audit more rich people" rather than "recover the most money" but that doesn't make them the same thing, or make the first one the only or even default thing they'll do if you give them more enforcement resources.