5 ms·

> It will be very naive to believe adding IRS staff will help with that. It is far easier to audit W2 employees than dealing with mega corporations. You're say

by loeg 8mo ago

> It will be very naive to believe adding IRS staff will help with that. It is far easier to audit W2 employees than dealing with mega corporations. You're saying auditing megacorps is hard, but somehow more staff won't help? I don't buy it.

pimlottc 8mo ago
I think they are suggesting the lack of political will to go after big companies is the bigger problem
up2isomorphism 8mo ago
Of course it won’t help. If you have an audit target to meet you want target meta? This exactly why ICE agents tends to target illegal immigrants that actually get a job and contribute to the society instead of criminals. Because the former are easy targets. Also fundamentally the tax law in the US are intrinsically favor capital owners, especially large corporations, adding more IRS agents only cost more tax payer’s money and give regular people more headaches.
- loeg 8mo ago
  > If you have an audit target to meet you want target meta? I don't believe the approach the IRS takes is to set targets and only audit the lowest hanging fruit up to some target. They have different sub-organizations pursuing different goals, and some sort of vision about fairness that means going after tough cases. > This exactly why ICE agents tends to target illegal immigrants that actually get a job and contribute to the society instead of criminals. Because the former are easy targets. This is completely orthogonal, but also untrue. It's way easier to go after criminals, as long as states cooperate. The recent Trumpian ICE is more expensive and less effective than earlier regimes. > adding more IRS agents only cost more tax payer’s money and give regular people more headaches. Many, many regular people underpay the taxes they owe. Additional IRS agents help close the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid, at a cost lower than the additional revenue. Your argument is just "individual tax cheats should be able to get away with it," which I can't agree with.
AnthonyMouse 8mo ago
> You're saying auditing megacorps is hard, but somehow more staff won't help? I don't buy it. It's not so much that it's hard, it's that it has a lower return on investment, because the IRS gets money from finding mistakes or intentional fraud. Megacorps have entire legal teams dedicated to preventing those things from happening, while lowering their taxes by finding lawful ways of reducing their taxes to almost nothing by pouring over the unfathomable complexity of the tax code to find obscure credits or chain together the right sequence of things so their profits end up in a jurisdiction where they're not taxed. If you audit them you spend an enormous amount of resources because their accounts are so complicated and then only get money if they screwed up, which they're less likely to have done than someone with fewer lawyers, and even then it will typically be something like you found a credit they weren't allowed to take and they owe $50,000 but the thing where they have a hundred billion in revenue and 0.2% of that in taxable profit was all by the book. Meanwhile smaller entities are far more likely to have screwed up because they have fewer resources to navigate the complexity of the tax code, and their accounts are less complicated, which makes it easier for the IRS to find mistakes and therefore get money. So if you give the IRS more resources and tell them to do audits to maximize recovery, those are the people they audit. But that also involves auditing a ton of individuals and small businesses who didn't do anything wrong in order to find the ones that did, and they rightfully hate that because nobody is paying them for the actual costs of the audit where the IRS found nothing, which is why they keep lobbying to stop the IRS from getting more resources to do that to them. And if the IRS had to pay the taxpayer's side of the audit costs then their "recovery efficiency rate" would go way down.
- bdangubic 8mo ago
  > It's not so much that it's hard, it's that it has a lower return on investment, because the IRS gets money from finding mistakes or intentional fraud.... Isn't this exactly what all megacorps are hoping for everyone thinks? I am not saying that you are wrong but these megacorps are some of the most evil the Civilization has ever seen (see Meta) and now you and I are hired as tax attorneys - pretty soon (if not right away) one of us will go "this shit's very much so illegal but who is actually going to audit us? - the answer, per your comment is basically no one because we think these megacorps and their lawyers are there to play by the book...

by loeg 8mo ago

pimlottc 8mo ago

I think they are suggesting the lack of political will to go after big companies is the bigger problem

up2isomorphism 8mo ago

Of course it won’t help. If you have an audit target to meet you want target meta? This exactly why ICE agents tends to target illegal immigrants that actually get a job and contribute to the society instead of criminals. Because the former are easy targets. Also fundamentally the tax law in the US are intrinsically favor capital owners, especially large corporations, adding more IRS agents only cost more tax payer’s money and give regular people more headaches.

loeg 8mo ago
> If you have an audit target to meet you want target meta? I don't believe the approach the IRS takes is to set targets and only audit the lowest hanging fruit up to some target. They have different sub-organizations pursuing different goals, and some sort of vision about fairness that means going after tough cases. > This exactly why ICE agents tends to target illegal immigrants that actually get a job and contribute to the society instead of criminals. Because the former are easy targets. This is completely orthogonal, but also untrue. It's way easier to go after criminals, as long as states cooperate. The recent Trumpian ICE is more expensive and less effective than earlier regimes. > adding more IRS agents only cost more tax payer’s money and give regular people more headaches. Many, many regular people underpay the taxes they owe. Additional IRS agents help close the gap between taxes owed and taxes paid, at a cost lower than the additional revenue. Your argument is just "individual tax cheats should be able to get away with it," which I can't agree with.

AnthonyMouse 8mo ago

> You're saying auditing megacorps is hard, but somehow more staff won't help? I don't buy it. It's not so much that it's hard, it's that it has a lower return on investment, because the IRS gets money from finding mistakes or intentional fraud. Megacorps have entire legal teams dedicated to preventing those things from happening, while lowering their taxes by finding lawful ways of reducing their taxes to almost nothing by pouring over the unfathomable complexity of the tax code to find obscure credits or chain together the right sequence of things so their profits end up in a jurisdiction where they're not taxed. If you audit them you spend an enormous amount of resources because their accounts are so complicated and then only get money if they screwed up, which they're less likely to have done than someone with fewer lawyers, and even then it will typically be something like you found a credit they weren't allowed to take and they owe $50,000 but the thing where they have a hundred billion in revenue and 0.2% of that in taxable profit was all by the book. Meanwhile smaller entities are far more likely to have screwed up because they have fewer resources to navigate the complexity of the tax code, and their accounts are less complicated, which makes it easier for the IRS to find mistakes and therefore get money. So if you give the IRS more resources and tell them to do audits to maximize recovery, those are the people they audit. But that also involves auditing a ton of individuals and small businesses who didn't do anything wrong in order to find the ones that did, and they rightfully hate that because nobody is paying them for the actual costs of the audit where the IRS found nothing, which is why they keep lobbying to stop the IRS from getting more resources to do that to them. And if the IRS had to pay the taxpayer's side of the audit costs then their "recovery efficiency rate" would go way down.

bdangubic 8mo ago
> It's not so much that it's hard, it's that it has a lower return on investment, because the IRS gets money from finding mistakes or intentional fraud.... Isn't this exactly what all megacorps are hoping for everyone thinks? I am not saying that you are wrong but these megacorps are some of the most evil the Civilization has ever seen (see Meta) and now you and I are hired as tax attorneys - pretty soon (if not right away) one of us will go "this shit's very much so illegal but who is actually going to audit us? - the answer, per your comment is basically no one because we think these megacorps and their lawyers are there to play by the book...