FR is funded solely by the freedom loving folks
who love and use it.
WE ARE FREE REPUBLIC!
You are Free Republic.
There are no outside influences.
No advertisers.
Just us, all of us.
Please Contribute Today!
Posted on 05/23/2013 9:55:52 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
I think that a lot of this is false correlation, meaning that an audit and political activity/association is only coincidental.
But, I think the question should be asked, especially in those cases where no deficiency was alleged. I went through one of those in 2012. Even the investigating agent admitted it was a waste of time, and after over $1000 in fees, my audit was closed with no change.
Somewhere, there is a record of why I was selected. If it was at an agent’s discretion, I want to know why. If they won’t say, then they deserve a visit from the FBI.
I would never give any information to John Cornyn. He has never been nor will he ever be a friend to any true Conservative and particularly if you are a TEA Party member or supporter.
GOP man up? You can't be serious!
When a client gets an audit notice I review the return and the documents requested and almost always can determine what triggered the audit. The document request normally tells you what triggered the audit because mixed in with the boiler plate requests is often something that is not boiler plate.
When I represent a client in an audit I want to know what they are looking for before the come. When I know what they are looking for, I can be prepared. I hate surprises in audits. It is almost always obvious what they think they can get for an adjustment.
I then do a cost benefit analysis to discuss the process of handling the audit. For example, if they are after auto expenses and the benefit of the auto expense deduction is less than the cost of supporting it we may decide to rollover.
I understand the normal field audit process to be that first returns get scored for potential income. The scoring process is secret but its not hard to see what items on a return may be questionable, the nature of the business etc. The second step is more arbitrary. Someone is supposed to manually review the selected return and assign it. Sometimes I have seen some less productive audits get assigned simply to keep staff busy or to train the auditor on procedures.
Every agent I have asked regarding the reason for selection responds that they do not know.
This is my point.
The audit letter didn’t request anything. It was simply an audit of my complete return. Now, do you understand why I am suspicious?
The agent didn’t challenge anything. All he did was disappear into a conference room for a day with my documentation, and sent a letter a few days later saying that there was no change. I got a final determination letter about a month later.
I didn’t expect the agent examining my return to know. But, someone made that decision. If they can’t articulate a reason, then I should have never been audited. But, if I found out they selected me for inappropriate reasons, I would file a criminal complaint.
Wasn’t Harry Reid the on going on and on about Romneys tax records? Wonder where that info came from? Perhaps Issa or Gowdy can ask.
Still no mention of this on the news.
Thanks Sub-Driver.
He did not ask for any documents?
None specifically. Just “everything”. My accountant just gave him copies of everything I provided to her.
I want to see LARGE NUMBERS of IRS employees and Obama Regime officials heading to jail.So do I, but for this to happen requires that the Holder "Just-Us" Department prosecute them. Does that sound realistic?
House Oversight e-mails: IRS IG report was originally supposed to be released … last September?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3023206/posts?page=12
ping
You could achieve that control easily. Oklahoma is a red state; let’s say there were 1,200 audits in that period of wealthy people. All you need then are their respective political leaning, accounting for the fact that (let’s say) 80% will be on the right. If 90% of the audits go against the right-leaning folks, they’ve got a problem.
BTW here’s another consideration: Oklahoma is, in fact, the reddest state by elected office. What are its audit rates in comparison to a purple state like, say, Missouri?
Still the tip of an iceberg...
A war has been waged against conservative Americans... the IRS was only one part of that war.
Oh come on, this all can be demonstrated as statistically insignificant. The IRS purpose is to collect revenues from those who work and make money. Because rich Republicans have money they pay the taxes. Democrats don’t work (or work off-the-books) and their right in life is to accept redistribution of said taxes. Would you be happier if the IRS sought out more Democrats to give money to? /s
I want to see IRS sued for their personal funds, since they deliberately violated their regulations. Hmmmmm IRS people having to sit through depositions.... popping popcorn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.