Taxes 2007: IRS does more audits, especially of wealthy
Average person has 1 in 100 risk of a tax review
By EILEEN PUTMAN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Your chances of being audited are pretty good if you're wealthy. They're not bad if you're not.
About one in 16 taxpayers with income of $1 million and higher was audited last year, a 33 percent increase from the previous year.
"If you're earning that kind of money and we notice a problem, you're going to hear from us," IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said in a statement on the agency's enforcement figures for the 2006 fiscal year.
Read more here.
By EILEEN PUTMAN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Your chances of being audited are pretty good if you're wealthy. They're not bad if you're not.
About one in 16 taxpayers with income of $1 million and higher was audited last year, a 33 percent increase from the previous year.
"If you're earning that kind of money and we notice a problem, you're going to hear from us," IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said in a statement on the agency's enforcement figures for the 2006 fiscal year.
Read more here.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
2:05 AM
5 Comments:
Congress set three years as the deadline, or statute of limitations, during which the IRS can go back and make additional tax assessments. But that time can be extended if the IRS suspects serious underreporting of income. There is no statute of limitations for failure to file a return or when tax fraud is suspected.
If the case reaches actual prosecution, there is this sobering fact: The IRS reports it had a conviction rate last year of 91.5 percent.
-------------------------------
Looking at the Brown Case, and this simple statistic, I'd say most all of todays Jurors involving any tax case are either duped, or the whole Jury is fixed. (or otherwise Fabricated of people, who the Judge knows He/She can control, and/or Manipulate... to Find as He/She Instructs them to find... Said Defendant.)
The reason the Browns are convicted of crimes other than liability is to escape the statute of limitations.
Besides the IRS never plays by it's own rules. Also, those who are upfront and honest about their position are more likely to undergo criminal charges than those who cheat and hide from the IRS. You are almost better off being a cheat than being a "tax honesty patriot".
The Internal Revenue Service:
For the 2004 fiscal year, the IRS will have a little more than 99,000 employees (full-time equivalent) and a budget of $10.185 billion. \\
NOW THAT'S BIG BUSINESS
MY FAIR SHARE IS WHAT?
0.000005% OF THEIR BUDGET
0.000000005% OF TOTAL TAKING FROM LABOR. I'LL TAKE MY CHANCES THANK YOU. AFTER ALL, I PLAN TO EAT , SHIT, BREATH , DRIVE MOST OF IT RIGHT OFF THE BAT. MESS UP MY JOB AND I'LL GET ANOTHER ONE. IF I HAVE TO. PIT THAT AGAINST THE COST TO COME GET ME. SO AT MY LEVEL OF WORKING POOR, WHO THE HELL CARES.
Yeah, most of you poor dumb bastards ought to be applying for welfare and not worrying about taxes.
Only very, very rarely are tax protestors anything like successful, and by far the vast majority would be considered "losers" by just about any standard.
Statute of limitations wasn't an issue in this cass, since it was six years, not three, according to 26 USC 6501(e).
Ed wasn't indicted or convicted ontax crimes, since Ed had no income during those six years. Elaine was the only one working.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home