As if the scales weren’t already tipped to benefit the rich, now, after being pressed, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) admits they have been discriminately auditing the poor. Why would the IRS rack this heap of inequity on top of those most in need? Apparently, it’s harder to audit the rich and costs too much money. That hurt my fingers to type.
The nonprofit investigative journalism hub ProPublica reports that this isn’t exactly new information.
ProPublica reported the disproportionate audit focus on lower-income families in April. Lawmakers confronted IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig about the emphasis, citing (ProPublica’s) stories, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Rettig for a plan to fix the imbalance. Rettig readily agreed.
Rather than returning with a plan, Rettig turned in a report that basically says it agrees that auditing the wealthy at higher rates makes sense. Even though it’s the right thing to do, the federal agency has no plans to change the status quo—unless, and until, Congress agrees to restore funds which have been cut 25% over the last nine years. Even though there is some reported bipartisan support for increased IRS funding, enough financial support to fix the problem is doubtful.
Here’s the first infuriating breakdown the IRS offered.
On the one hand, the IRS said, auditing poor taxpayers is a lot easier: The agency uses relatively low-level employees to audit returns for low-income taxpayers who claim the earned income tax credit. The audits — of which there were about 380,000 last year, accounting for 39% of the total the IRS conducted — are done by mail and don’t take too much staff time, either. They are “the most efficient use of available IRS examination resources,” Rettig’s report says.
Then came a second lame, inexcusable excuse.
On the other hand, auditing the rich is hard. It takes senior auditors hours upon hours to complete an exam. What’s more, the letter says, “the rate of attrition is significantly higher among these more experienced examiners.” As a result, the budget cuts have hit this part of the IRS particularly hard.
Sen. Wyden, a ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, came down hard on the IRS, with simple common sense advice.
In response to Rettig’s letter, Wyden agreed in a statement that the IRS needs more money, “but that does not eliminate the need for the agency to begin reversing the alarming trend of plummeting audit rates of the wealthy within its current budget.”
Agreed. The IRS can turn the tables and play fair, but there seems to be no incentive to make the change now—not even out of good conscience. It’s not about the money, but it’s about the money.
Here’s a thought. If there’s not enough in the piggy bank to cover the expenses of pursuing more scrutiny of the rich, why not use the excess money made from financially assaulting the poor and put that money towards aggressively auditing the wealthy? Wouldn’t the return be greater—even if the initial cost is a bit painful? I guess that’s just too hard.