Tag Archives: Internal Revenue Service

How To Avoid The Facts While Conducting An Investigation

Posted on by

Carol Platt Liebau posted an article at Townhall.com yesterday about the Inspector General‘s report on the Internal Revenue‘s dealing with people and groups associated with conservatism. Ms. Liebau has one of those analytical minds that can sort through the fluff and get to the heart of the issue. Her article is amazing in the way it asks the questions no one investigating seemed to be interested in asking.

The article reports:

There’s nothing in there about the targeting of individuals, as I noted last night.

There’s nothing in there about who leaked documents to the media (which I wrote about here).

There’s nothing in there about how an Obama relection campaign chairman came to possess confidential information he used to attack Mitt Romney.

What the report reveals — more than anything else — is that it’s a starting point for some sharp inquiry by Congress, raising more questions than it answers.

These are two of the questions Ms. Liebau wants answered:

2. On page 3, the report notes that “During the 2012 election cycle, some members of Congress raised concerns about selective enforcement.”  What were these members told? What investigation had been done internally — and by whom — before members like Orrin Hatch were assured that their concerns were baseless? This goes to whether members of Congress were deliberately lied to — and by whom — and whether their concerns were even taken seriously in the first place.

3. Also on page 3, the report states that some members of Congress asked the IRS to investigate whether existing 501(c)(4)’s were engaged in improper campaign activity. In other words, some members were urging greater scrutiny of 501(c)(4)’s.  What members were these? Whom did they contact at the IRS? What were they told, and by whom? It would be interesting to know whether any former staffers of these members participated in the wrongdoing.  What’s more, if top officials were responsive to these requests, it might suggest where direction for the targeting came from.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is amazing how much paper you can use to say nothing and how many questions you can ask that do not lead in the direction of finding out the truth.

I am reaching a point where I think 99% of the people now in power in Washington should be voted out of office.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Is This All About And Does It Matter?

Posted on by

As I view what is happening in Washington, the skeptic in me keeps remembering the scene in the Bill Murray movie “Meatballs” where the character Bill Murray plays leads the campers in a chant of “It just doesn’t matter.” I wish it did matter, but I just don’t think it does.

I have lost track of the scandals–I babysat grandchildren today and could not get my usual news fix. I know that there was a document dump of Benghazi-related documents today (hotair.com). I know that the acting IRS commissioner is leaving (the Daily Mail)–President Obama says that Steve Miller has been asked to resign–Steve Miller says that his assignment ends in early June. The Associated Press and had their phones bugged. At the same time conservative groups were being harassed by the IRS, President Obama’s half brother received tax-exempt status for the Barack H. Obama Foundation, a shady charity headed that operated illegally for years (the Daily Caller).

So where do we go from here? Impeachment is a really bad idea. It will not solve the problem and will probably create more problems. The press is quite capable of bringing down the presidency of any president they do not like–we are all human and make mistakes; and even if we don’t, mistakes can be manufactured. For example–the evidence President Bush cited to justify the war in Iraq was seen and evaluated by the Democrat leadership in Congress. When the Democrats voted for the war in Iraq, they knew everything President Bush knew–there was no way he could have lied to them. But that didn’t prevent cries of “Bush lied, people died.” When the media couldn’t get to Dick Cheney, they went after Scooter Libby. If President Obama were impeached, in the future the press would work very hard to bring down any administration they didn’t like. The will of the voters’ would be routinely undermined. Also, impeachment would further divide the country and create partisanship. Then again, there is the prospect of President Biden.

Impeachment is not the answer, so what is the answer? The answer lies with the voters. Voters need to become aware of what is going on and vote against anyone who is part of it or seems to be supporting it. The members of Congress that are blocking investigations should be voted out of office.  Those members of Congress who are defending the President and calling to end investigations need to be voted out of office–the investigations should end after they are finished and not before.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Has Happened To The Country I Love?

Posted on by

Breitbart.com is reporting today that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) passed the confidential applications for tax-exempt status of nine conservative groups to the progressive group ProPublica.

The article reports:

The same IRS office that deliberately targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status in the run-up to the 2012 election released nine pending confidential applications of conservative groups to ProPublica late last year… In response to a request for the applications for 67 different nonprofits last November, the Cincinnati office of the IRS sent ProPublica applications or documentation for 31 groups. Nine of those applications had not yet been approved—meaning they were not supposed to be made public. (We made six of those public, after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy.)

These people make Richard Nixon look like an amateur.

The article further reports:

On Friday, the House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to hold a formal hearing on the IRS conservative targeting scandal. IRS Commissioner Steve Miller and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George are slated to testify.

At what point does someone other than the lower level employees take responsibility for these actions?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Quote Of The Week

Posted on by

From George Will at the Washington Post on May 13:

Jay Carney, whose unenviable job is not to explain but to explain away what his employers say, calls the IRS’s behavior “inappropriate.” No, using the salad fork for the entree is inappropriate. Using the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes is a criminal offense.

It’s An Old Story But We Are Just Now Hearing It

Posted on by

There is a lot of information coming out today about the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targeting conservatives for excessive scrutiny.  On Saturday, I posted an article which included some of the extra questions conservative groups were asked when they applied for their tax exemption status (rightwinggranny.com).  The use of the IRS and other groups to target political opponents is not new–the Clintons turned it into an art form. The Obamas have also learned to use it frequently.

In May of 2012, I posted an article about Intimidation of one Romney donor (rightwinggranny.com). Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of Melaleuca Inc.was subjected to the same kind of scrutiny that normally be reserved for a political candidate. Today’s Daily Caller details some of what Mr. Vandersloot was subjected to.

Fox News posted a story today showing how the initial interest of the IRS into the Tea Party Movement was expanded:

The article at Fox explains:

The internal IG timeline shows a unit in the agency was looking at Tea Party and “patriot” groups dating back to early 2010. But it shows that list of criteria drastically expanding by the time a June 2011 briefing was held. It then included groups focused on government spending, government debt, taxes, and education on ways to “make America a better place to live.” It even flagged groups whose file included criticism of “how the country is being run.” 

By early 2012, the criteria were updated to include organizations involved in “limiting/expanding government,” education on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and social economic reform. 

I remember that when Barack Obama was elected, many people were complaining that we were about to enter Jimmy Carter’s second term. I don’t think that is right. I think Barack Obama has morphed into the third term of Richard Nixon.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes Honesty Overrules Political Affiliation

Posted on by

There are still some honest politicians left. Yes, you read that right. Evidently, Dennis Kucinich is one of them. It truly scares me that I am in agreement with Dennis Kucinich, but he was right on target on Fox News Sunday yesterday. Below are two videos of his statements on Benghazi and on the targeting of conservative political groups by the Internal Revenue Service:

It scares me that I am in agreement with a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat, but in this case, Dennis Kucinich is absolutely right!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Politicizing The Internal Revenue Service

Posted on by

Politicizing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is not a new or original idea. I am sure it has been done in the past in varying degrees, but the Obama Administration seems to have turned it into an art form. They have a slightly less obvious approach–not so much audits, but collecting information on political opponents.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday on some past abuses of the IRS by the Obama Administration.

The article at Power Line reports:

In August 2010, Austin Goolsbee, who directed Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and later chaired his Council of Economic Advisers, gave a press briefing in which he discussed corporate income taxes. In that briefing, he suggested that he had access to confidential IRS data, and falsely accused the administration’s beta noire, Koch Industries, of not paying corporate income taxes.

The article goes on to give the exact quote. The obvious question asked in the Power Line article is, “How did an Obama Administration official obtain confidential IRS tax records?” It should also be noted here that the charges were false. The fact that the charges were false probably doesn’t matter–I am willing to bet that more people heard the false charges than heard that the charges were false.

The article at Power Line concludes:

UPDATE: Also, let’s not forget Obama’s joke, during the first days of his presidency, in a speech at Arizona State University:

I really thought this was much ado about nothing, but I do think we all learned an important lesson. I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets. . . . President [Michael] Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS.

At the time, most people thought he was kidding. But as Glenn Reynolds pointed out at the time, jokes about presidential abuse of power are not funny when they come from the president. With hindsight, more attention should have been paid.

Mary Katharine Ham posted an article at Hot Air yesterday showing exactly what questions organizations containing the words ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ were asked. The questions are quite revealing. The American Center for Law & Justice has handled lawsuits by a number of these organizations protesting their treatment, and the article at Hot Air lists specific questions their clients were asked:

IRS1

IRS2

IRS3

Please follow the link above to the Hot Air article to read further questions and compliance instructions. The blame for this has been put on some low-level IRS employees in Cincinnati. As someone who used to work for the government many years ago, I find it hard to believe that low-level employees would take this kind of initiative on their own. At any rate, I wondered why the questions asked didn’t include the political affiliation of the household pets of the boards of directors of the various organizations. It seems as if every other question was asked.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

It All Depends On How You Name Something

Posted on by

There have been some negative comments lately from Democrats worried about how the implementation of ObamaCare will impact the 2014 mid-term elections. Historically, a President in his second term loses big in the mid-term elections, so the Democrats don’t want any additional difficulties. Recently a Democrat referred to ObamaCare as a ‘train wreck’ about to happen. That certainly does not improve the image of ObamaCare. Also, a lot of 26-year-olds are timing out of their parents’ health insurance and realizing that the IRS will be fining them if they do not pay the increased premiums ObamaCare requires from them. Keep in mind that increasing premiums on younger people is supposed to subsidize medical expenses for the elderly and for those with pre-existing health conditions.

Well, now it’s time for the goodwill tour for ObamaCare. Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that as part of the Mother’s Day offensive for ObamaCare, President Obama has described ObamaCare as “largest health care tax cut for working families and small businesses in our history. “ Really. If you believe that, please call me about buying some waterfront property in Arizona–or maybe I could interest you in a bridge in New York.

The article reports:

His argument was a Hail-Mary effort to redesignate subsidies for individuals to purchase health insurance on government-run exchanges as a “tax cut.” But according to the Congressional Budget Office, these subsidies actually qualify as more than $1 trillion in “Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending.” (Emphasis mine.)

Far from being a historic tax cut, Obamacare actually qualifies as one of the largest tax increases in history. It contains roughly $1 trillion in taxes — on insurance plans, medical devices and investment income. And many of the taxes will end up falling on the middle class. The law’s individual mandate, which the Obama administration successful argued was a tax before the U.S. Supreme Court, is projected to hit nearly 5 million Americans with incomes less than $60,000 by 2016.

I understand that right now we have a lot of low-information voters who know more about American Idol than about what is going on in Washington. However, as these people begin to notice what is happening to their household budgets, maybe they will wake up and start paying attention. I can relate to the low-information voters–I used to be one. My excuse was not American Idol–my excuse was juggling family, work, etc. Either way, it’s time for America to wake up and begin to vote for people who will actually tell us the truth and practice fiscal restraint. I am sure that we have people in politics who are capable of that–I am just not sure how much power they have right now. We need to pay attention and vote accordingly.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unfortunately This Is Not A Surprise To Anyone Who Has Been Paying Attention

Posted on by

The Associated Press is reporting today that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has apologized for targeting conservative groups during the 2012 election cycle to see if they were violating the rules of their non-profit status.

The article reports:

IRS agents singled out dozens of organizations for additional reviews because they included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their exemption applications, said Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt groups. In some cases, groups were asked for lists of donors, which violates IRS policy in most cases, she said.

I don’t like to accuse the Associated Press of bias, but the article makes a point of noting:

The agency — led at the time by a Bush administration appointee — blamed low-level employees, saying no high-level officials were aware.

The article reports that the excessive scrutiny on groups with the words ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their name began with ‘low-level’ employees in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias. Really? Then what do you suppose motivated them?

The article further reports:

“Mistakes were made initially, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan rationale,” the IRS said in a statement. “We fixed the situation last year and have made significant progress in moving the centralized cases through our system.”

“I don’t think there’s any question we were unfairly targeted,” said Tom Zawistowski, who until recently was president of the Ohio Liberty Coalition, an alliance of tea party groups in the state.

Zawistowski’s group was among many conservative organizations that battled the IRS over what they saw as discriminatory treatment. The group first applied for nonprofit status in June 2009, and it was finally granted on Dec. 7, 2012, he said — one month after Election Day.

This entire story is further proof that Chicago-style politics has truly come to Washington.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Americans Will Really Pay For Obamacare

Posted on by

This article is based on three stories–one at Hot Air posted yesterday, one at the Wall Street Journal posted Thursday, and one posted at CNS News on Thursday. The bottom line on the Hot Air and CNS News stories is that the cheapest health care plan for a family under Obamacare will cost $20,000 per year. The bottom line on the Wall Street Journal story is that everything we were told about Obamacare by President Obama has turned out to be not true.

The Wall Street Journal article lists four major promises that have been broken in Obamacare:

1. Lower health-care costs

2. Smaller deficits

3. Preservation of existing insurance

4. Increased productivity

Please follow the link to the Wall Street Journal article to see the details of each broken promise.

The Obamacare insurance has different levels of plans. CNS News reports on the bronze plan–the lowest level. The article reports:

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare–after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.

The article at Hot Air points out:

Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would need to pay a “penalty” (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a “tax”) of $2,400 in 2016.

The best that we can hope for is that Obamacare will collapse under its own weight and we can find a better way to help everyone get health insurance.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Repealing ObamaCare Is Still A Good Idea

Posted on by

As we approach the fiscal cliff and some of us realize that no matter what happens taxes on all Americans will be going up, we are forgetting what Obamacare is going to do to our taxes. Before I go into the details, I would like to remind everyone that the Medieval surfs only paid 10 percent of their crops to the lord of the manor. They were allowed to keep more of the fruit of their labor than Americans are currently keeping.

The Daily Caller posted an article yesterday listing some of the new taxes that will be imposed by Obamacare. The new ‘taxes on the rich’ are expected to average approximately $700 billion over 10 years.

The article lists some of these new taxes. Here are a few:

Upper-income households. Starting Jan. 1, individuals making more than $200,000 per year, and couples making more than $250,000 will face a 0.9 percent Medicare tax increase on wages above those threshold amounts. They’ll also face an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income. Together these are the biggest tax increase in the health care law.

Employer penalties. Starting in 2014, companies with 50 or more employees that do not offer coverage will face penalties if at least one of their employees receives government-subsidized coverage. The penalty is $2,000 per employee, but a company’s first 30 workers don’t count toward the total.

Health care industries. Insurers, drug companies and medical device manufacturers face new fees and taxes. Companies that make medical equipment sold chiefly through doctors and hospitals, such as pacemakers, artificial hips and coronary stents, will pay a 2.3 percent excise tax on their sales, expected to total $1.7 billion in its first year, 2013. They’re trying to get it repealed.

The insurance industry faces an annual fee that starts at $8 billion in its first year, 2014.

The article also lists pharmaceutical companies, which are already paying fees; people who don’t have insurance, who will be fined; and people who use tanning salons. It is no wonder that the only gains in employment that have resulted from Obamacare are in the Internal Revenue Service.

The prospect of a fiscal cliff is looming right now. The prospect of a serious recession brought on by the taxes of Obamacare is also looming, but has somehow been lost in the shuffle. If America is to survive economically, we need a Congress who will deal with both in a way that is good for the country–not simply good for their re-election campaigns.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Playing Numbers To Keep Americans In The Dark

Posted on by

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that there is a plan being considered by the Obama Administration to keep American workers in the dark about the consequences of going over the ‘fiscal cliff.’ According to the article, the idea is that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will simply adjust the tax withholding tables so that Americans do not see the results of going over the cliff in their paychecks. Politically this might work for a short time, but practically, it could easily be a disaster.

The article reports:

This idea is being floated now. Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, explained, “If we were to, say, go over the cliff and the rates go up, he could modify those withholding tables such that the average employee out there would not effectively see any more or less taken out of his paycheck.”

As Treasury Secretary, Geithner is responsible for setting withholding tables “most appropriate” in implementing tax law. Joseph Minarek, senior vice president and director of research at the Committee for Economic Development, said that Obama could use Geithner’s power as leverage in forcing Republicans to come to a deal on the fiscal cliff.

The article also points out that this strategy could result in a lot of angry taxpayers next April when they realize that they have to write checks to the IRS.

The article concludes:

But the Obama Administration knows that if the fiscal cliff is hit, other taxes, such as the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax and taxes on capital gains and dividends will rise precipitously, so they are considering the withholding plan as a way to fool the middle-class long enough so they forget who was responsible for raising their taxes.

It’s not about who is responsible for what–it is about what is best for America. It would be nice if more people in Washington understood that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Was Obamacare About Healthcare Or Taxes ?

Posted on by

Reuters reported on Monday that the Internal Revenue Service has released new rules concerning dividends and capital gains as part of the 2010 healthcare law. The obvious questions here is, “What do dividends and capital gains have to do with healthcare?” Evidently more than we knew.

The article reports:

The tax affects only individuals with more than $200,000 in modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), and married couples filing jointly with more than $250,000 of MAGI.

The tax applies to a broad range of investment securities ranging from stocks and bonds to commodity securities and specialized derivatives.

The 159 pages of rules spell out when the tax applies to trusts and annuities, as well as to individual securities traders.

Released late on Friday, the new regulations include a 0.9 percent healthcare tax on wages for high-income individuals.

Please keep in mind that the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) was originally enacted to impact only the wealthy. As of 2011, a single person who made $48,450 was impacted by that tax. I really don’t consider $48,450 wealthy. How long will it be before the new healthcare taxes begin to impact the middle class?

The article further points out:

The IRS plans to release a new form for taxpayers to fill out for this tax when filing 2013 returns.

Oh joy.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Side Effect Of ObamaCare

Posted on by

Real Clear Politics posted an article today about the impact of ObamaCare on the full-time job market.

The article reports:

Just recently, the Internal Revenue Service issued an 18-page, single-spaced notice explaining how to distinguish between full-time and part-time workers under the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). The difference matters, because the ACA requires employers with 50 or more full-time workers to provide health insurance for those workers. At the same time, no company has to buy insurance for part-time employees, defined as those working less than 30 hours a week.

I’ll go into the details of what that means in a minutes, but stop a minute and look at what just happened. A new law about healthcare is causing the Internal Revenue Service to issue a notice explaining full-time and part-time employment. I thought ObamaCare was about healthcare.

The part of ObamaCare that this IRS notice relates to will not kick in until after the election (surprised?).

The article reports on the impact:

Employers have a huge incentive to hold workers under the 30-hour weekly threshold. The requirement to provide insurance above that acts as a steep employment tax. Companies will try to minimize the tax. The most vulnerable workers are the poorest and least skilled who can be most easily replaced and for whom insurance costs loom largest. Indeed, the adjustment has already started.

Please follow the link to the Real Clear Politics article to read the details. This is a law that needs to be repealed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We’re Still Not Done With Solyndra

Posted on by

On Wednesday, the Washington Times posted an article about the bankruptcy of Solyndra.

The article states:

The Internal Revenue Service urged a bankruptcy judge to reject solar panel maker Solyndra LLC’s bankruptcy plan Wednesday, saying it amounts to little more than an avenue for owners of an empty corporate shell to avoid paying taxes.

“The undeniable conclusion is that tax benefits drive this plan,” attorneys for the IRS wrote in a bankruptcy pleading.

The attorneys for the IRS stated that that the tax breaks would be worth more money than funds set aside for creditors.

The article explained the bankruptcy plan:

Under Solyndra’s reorganization plan, two big investors in the company, Madrone Partners LP and Argonaut Ventures, together would own nearly all of a shell company formed in the wake of Solyndra’s bankruptcy reorganization.

But the IRS said in court papers that there was little reason for the shell company to exist other than to help the owners avoid taxes. Argonaut is the investment arm of a family foundation headed by Oklahoma businessman George Kaiser, a fundraiser for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Madrone has ties to the family that owns Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

The article concludes:

The government attorneys said that while the reorganization plan had “some marginal benefits,” there was no doubt that the most important priority was to “preserve a shell corporation to be able to reduce future tax liabilities by hundreds of millions of dollars.”

This is what crony capitalism looks like.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What In The World Are We Thinking ?

Posted on by

Bill Clinton’s relationship with the truth has not changed since the 1990’s. Breitbart.com posted a video of Bill Clinton on CNN yesterday explaining that the American people are easily confused by plans of lower taxes and lower spending. In the video he cited a few facts that were simply not true. See the numbers below taken from the National Taxpayers Union to see who actually pays income taxes in America.

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much? 

                                Tax Year 2009
 
Percentiles Ranked by AGI AGI Threshold on Percentiles Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% $343,927 36.73
Top 5% $154,643 58.66
Top 10% $112,124 70.47
Top 25% $66,193 87.3
Top 50% $32,396 97.75
Bottom 50% <$32,396 2.25
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

Lower taxes and smaller government allow the private sector to grow. There is nothing confusing about that, and the American people are not confused. We are reaching the point where more people are taking money out of government that are putting money in. At that point the system totally breaks down and America as we have known it disappears. This election may be our last chance to prevent that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Common Sense Applied To Government

Posted on by

Fox News reported yesterday that a bill has passed the House of Representative which would fire federal employees who have not paid their income taxes.

The article reports:

It passed by a vote of 263 to 114 and will be sent to the Senate.

The article further states:

Those on a plan to repay back taxes or in negotiations with the IRS would be exempt from the proposed change. IRS employees already can be terminated for non-payment of federal income taxes.

In April 2011, the bill was passed out of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, of which Chaffetz is a member.

The bill would include those seeking federal contracts and grants, but exempts uniformed military personnel. In addition, federal agencies would be required to give 60 days notice before taking personnel action.

Current IRS data shows that 100,000 civilian government employees owed $1 billion in unpaid federal income taxes in 2009. Rather than raise taxes on everyone, shouldn’t we be concerned about collecting taxes already in existence from those who owe them?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Amazing Wisdom Of The Internal Revenue Service

Posted on by

Commentary Magazine posted an article yesterday about the children of New York art dealer Ileana Sonnabend. Mrs. Sonnabend died in 2007.  The children inherited a fabulous collection of modern art valued at $1 billion.

The article reports:

Her children have already paid $471 million in estate taxes on the collection, being forced to sell off most of it to meet the bill.

The story continues:

But there is one item in the collection, a work by Robert Rauschenberg that cannot be sold. It contains a stuffed bald eagle and under the terms of the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 1918 Migratory Bird Act, it is a felony to “possess, sell, purchase, barter, transport, import or export any bald eagle — alive or dead.” The estate, advised by three experts, including one from Christie’s, therefore, valued the work at zero. The IRS decided it was worth $65 million, and is demanding $29.2 million in taxes and $11 million in penalties because the heirs “inaccurately” stated its value.

The question here is very simple–if they cannot legally sell the article, what is its value? The article points out that the value of anything is only what someone is willing to pay for it. In this case, the article cannot be legally sold, so it has no value. However, that didn’t stop the IRS!

The article concludes:

The IRS has an “Art Advisory Panel,” that provides expert advice on the value of art works involved in estates. It was the panel that decided it was worth $65 million. Stephanie Barron, a member of the panel and an art curator at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, said that, “It’s a stunning work of art and we all just cringed at the idea of saying that this had zero value. It just didn’t make any sense.”

It makes perfect sense and Ms. Barron’s statement is a classic example of the fallacy of the just price, that things have inherent value independent of the marketplace. They may have artistic value, emotional value, religious value, etc. But if they cannot be sold then they have no monetary value because they cannot be converted into money.

The IRS Art Advisory Board, I assume, is made up of art experts. It should add an economist to give the other board members a lesson in economics 101 when necessary. And the IRS should have someone empowered to tell the Bureau, “Are you crazy? This will make us look like idiots, and vindictive idiots at that.”

Keep in mind that the IRS is the main government agency involved in implementing Obamacare.

The Tax Changes In Obamacare

Posted on by

On Friday the Weekly Standard posted an article about the impact of Obamacare on the Tax Code. The article quotes a Treasury Department that describes Obamacare as “represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years and affects millions of taxpayers.” The report further states that Obamacare’s “new taxes, fees, and penalties account for approximately $438 billion.” 

That is a conservative estimate.

The article reports:

…that $438 billion in new taxes, fees, and penalties on Americans and American businesses is just the tally through 2019 — at which point Obamacare would really have been in effect for only six years (2014-19), not the ten years that are the norm for government scoring.  On an annual basis, Obamacare’s taxes, fees, and penalties (according to that same official estimate) would increase from $48 billion in 2014 to $88 billion in 2019, rising between 9 and 26 percent per year (depending upon the year) — with no end in sight.

The article points out that the only job creation due to Obamacare is in the IRS.

I would like to remind everyone at this point that Obamacare was passed without one single Republican vote. The Republicans were given no input into the bill at all. Had the Obamacare bill included such things as tort reform and portability of insurance across state lines, we might not be anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on the current monstrosity.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Tax Policy Thing…

Posted on by

Yesterday wthr.com, an Indiana television station, posted an article about a tax loophole that it costing Americans billions of dollars–it doesn’t involve ‘evil’ corporations or the ‘evil’ rich–it involves a simple IRS tax policy toward legal and illegal aliens who are working in America.

Please watch the video at the link above to hear the entire story. Essentially what is happening is that non-Americans who are working in America are issued an ITIN, an individual taxpayer identification number. A 9-digit ITIN number issued by the IRS provides both resident and nonresident aliens with a unique identification number that allows them to file tax returns. This number is issued to both legal and illegal aliens.

The article reports:

Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.

The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.  

But 13 Investigates has found many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.

“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower told Eyewitness News. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”

Some of the tax refunds generated by this practice have reached $30,000. I wonder if $30,000 was paid in taxes in the first place.

The article posted a statement from the IRS regarding this matter:

Full statement to WTHR from the Internal Revenue Service

The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS shouldn’t be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies it as it is written. If the law were changed, the IRS would change its programs accordingly. The IRS disagrees with TIGTA’s recommendation on requiring additional documentation to verify child credit claims. As TIGTA acknowledges in this report, the IRS does not currently have the legal authority to verify and disallow the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit during return processing simply because of the lack of documentation. The IRS has procedures in place specifically for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing stream and prior to issuance of a refund. The IRS continues to work to refine and improve our processes.

Why do I have the feeling that if I start listing my nieces or nephews on my tax return, the IRS will pay me a visit?

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hidden In The Highway Bill Passed In March

Posted on by

Thomas.gov posts the text of bills that have passed Congress. They also post the votes and other details about the bills. The Highway Bill that passed the Senate was S.1813. It passed on March 19th. There were a few things in the bill that should be of concern to Americans.

This is one part of the bill I am concerned about:

SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.

    `(a) In General- If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926′.
    `(b) Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt- For purposes of this section, the term `seriously delinquent tax debt’ means an outstanding debt under this title for which a notice of lien has been filed in public records pursuant to section 6323 or a notice of levy has been filed pursuant to section 6331, except that such term does not include–
    `(1) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement under section 6159 or 7122, and
    `(2) a debt with respect to which collection is suspended because a collection due process hearing under section 6330, or relief under subsection (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015, is requested or pending.
    `(c) Adjustment for Inflation- In the case of a calendar year beginning after 2012, the dollar amount in subsection (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to–
    `(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
    `(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2011′ for `calendar year 1992′ in subparagraph (B) thereof.
    If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of $1,000.’.
    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
    `Sec. 7345. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain tax delinquencies.’.
    (c) Authority for Information Sharing-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (l) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    `(23) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF PASSPORT REVOCATION UNDER SECTION 7345-
    `(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall, upon receiving a certification described in section 7345, disclose to the Secretary of State return information with respect to a taxpayer who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section. Such return information shall be limited to–
    `(i) the taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, and
    `(ii) the amount of such seriously delinquent tax debt.
    `(B) RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Department of State for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, carrying out the requirements of section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926′.’.
    (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of such Code is amended by striking `or (22)’ each place it appears in subparagraph (F)(ii) and in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting `(22), or (23)’.
    (d) Revocation Authorization- The Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926′, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT.

    `(a) Ineligibility-
    `(1) ISSUANCE- Except as provided under subsection (b), upon receiving a certification described in section 7345 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may not issue a passport or passport card to any individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section.
    `(2) REVOCATION- The Secretary of State shall revoke a passport or passport card previously issued to any individual described in subparagraph (A).
    `(b) Exceptions-
    `(1) EMERGENCY AND HUMANITARIAN SITUATIONS- Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of State may issue a passport or passport card, in emergency circumstances or for humanitarian reasons, to an individual described in subsection (a)(1).
    `(2) LIMITATION FOR RETURN TO UNITED STATES- Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of State, before revocation, may–
    `(A) limit a previously issued passport or passport card only for return travel to the United States; or
    `(B) issue a limited passport or passport card that only permits return travel to the United States.’.
    (e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 1, 2013.

Note that this portion of the bill does not take effect until January 1, 2013–after the November election.

In September 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported:

Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents’ names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama’s very own White House owe the government they’re allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess.

In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS’ parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis’ husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System’s board of governors owe $1,076,733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.

Does this new law apply to those people?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Preemptive Strike On The Supreme Court

Posted on by

The Hill is reporting today that the Obama Administration has diverted roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law.

The article reports:

The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending, and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.

It is very interesting to me that the money is being provided ‘outside the normal appropriations process.’

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obamacare is under discussion at the Supreme Court. It is interesting to me that this donation to the IRS could not wait under the Supreme Court handed down its decision. Maybe I am becoming overly cynical in my old age, but I have the feeling that Obamacare is going to be implemented regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

The article further reports:

The law contains dozens of targeted appropriations to implement specific provisions. It also gave the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund, to use as it sees fit. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.”

HHS plans to drain the entire fund by September — before the presidential election, and more than a year before most of the healthcare law takes effect. Roughly half of that money will ultimately go to the IRS.

HHS has transferred almost $200 million to the IRS over the past two years and plans to transfer more than $300 million this year, according to figures provided by a congressional aide.

We are in serious danger of having our Constitution become a worthless piece of paper.

Meanwhile, this is a YouTube audio I have added for your consideration. It is a portion of the Michael Savage radio program. I would like to dismiss it as over the top, but there is enough plausible information in it to prevent me from doing that. Please listen and draw your own conclusions.

 

I am sincerely worried about the future of America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Targeting Pollitical Diversity

Posted on by

CBN News posted a story today about the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting on the Tea Party now that the election season is here.

The article reports:

In what some believe to be an attempt to intimidate and silence the Tea Party, the IRS is sending letters to Democratic and Republican organizations seeking non-profit status looking to see if funds are used properly under tax law.

The questionnaires want organizations to provide all communications with legislative bodies, describe membership criteria and the nature of the relationship with any candidate for public office.

The move has prompted the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) to step in and defend about 20 Tea Party groups from what it’s calling government harassment.

American Center for Law and Justice Chief Council Jay Sekulow stated that he would answer the questions that the government can legitimately ask, but will not answer those questions that are unconstitutional. The ACLJ has stated that it is prepared to take the matter to court and that it has called for Congressional oversight hearings.

For more information, please watch this video:

It

The video is an interview of Attorney Sekulow that explains exactly what has been happening.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Not Just Get Rid Of The Stupid Law ?

Posted on by

From the time America began, the Church has had a role to play in the community. When Connecticut was settled, a group of pilgrims to the New World were not allowed to form a community unless they had a Pastor with them. Many of the pulpits of America spoke out against slavery before the War Between the States. The American Revolution was partially fueled from the pulpits of America. Historically, the church matters.

Today’s Daily Caller posted a story about a speech given by Valerie Jarrett in Atlanta on Martin Luther King Day. The speech was given at Ebenezer Baptist Church.

The article reports:

On Sunday President Barack Obama’s controversial aide, Valerie Jarrett, used the Ebenezer pulpit to tell the congregation that the jobs of teachers, police and firefighters “are now in jeopardy because Congress — well, let me be specific — because [of] the Republicans in Congress.”

According to current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules:

“Voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention,” according to the IRS website.

Erik Stanley, a senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), has stated that if the church is charged with violating IRS rules, the ADF will defend the church. The goal of the ADF is to increase freedom in the pulpit.
 

I don’t believe candidates or political parties should go into churches and raise campaign funds–I find that offensive. But I do believe that the church has the right and the responsibility to provide a moral perspective on the issues of the day. In the case of the Christian church, that would be a Biblical perspective. I also think that it is the responsibility of Christians to be informed voters who understand how our representative republic works.

Enhanced by Zemanta

There Were A Few Hazards With “We Have To Pass The Bill To Find Out What’s In it” That Are Now Coming To Light

Posted on by
IRS building on Constitution Avenue in Washing...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about another problem that has surfaced as we approach the implementation of ObamaCare. The problem is major–the Obama administration is attempting to rewrite the law without the aid of Congress.

The article reports:

The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.

This is where the glitch comes in: ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of ObamaCare’s spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions. 

Please do not assume that I fully understand what this means–I don’t. What I do understand is the ObamaCare is bad law, ultimately very expensive law, and needs to go away.

It gets even more complicated. The article further reports:

The Obama administration wants to avoid that legislative debacle, so this summer it proposed an IRS rule to offer premium assistance in all exchanges “whether established under section 1311 or 1321.” On Nov. 17 the IRS will hold a public hearing on that proposal. According to a Treasury Department spokeswoman, the administration is “confident” that offering premium assistance where Congress has not authorized it “is consistent with the intent of the law and our ability to interpret and implement it.”

Such confidence is misplaced. The text of the law is perfectly clear. And without congressional authorization, the IRS lacks the power to dispense tax credits or spend money. 

The battle for Obamacare has just begun.

Enhanced by Zemanta