Talk:Internal Revenue Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Flooding?[edit]

This is old and not very important. I think it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.217.40 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

done Lionelt (talk) 09:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Crimes against the IRS[edit]

Shouldn't Joseph Stack and other attacks on the IRS be documented in this article? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is already a link to Tax protester (United States) in the navbox in the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the murder of an IRS employee by a person flying an airplane into an IRS office building has more importance than flooding in an IRS office building that did not kill or injure anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.217.40 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court? Zylog79 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Zylog79: You're confusing your legal terminology. The term "power of attorney" usually has nothing to do with representing someone -- as an attorney at law -- in court. The U.S. Department of Justice by law represents the government of the United States of America in federal court in federal tax cases (with exceptions). The Internal Revenue Service is designated as a "bureau" of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, a department of the government of the United States of America. So, in a federal tax matter, a lawyer -- a person licensed as an attorney at law (a person licensed to practice law) -- in the Department of Justice represents the Internal Revenue Service. The exception is in U.S. Tax Court, where the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (the head of the IRS) is represented by attorneys in the Office of Chief Counsel of the IRS.
By contrast, the term "power of attorney" is not used to describe the power of an attorney at law to practice law or represent someone in court. The term "power of attorney" means the power to act on behalf of someone else as an "attorney in fact,". An "attorney in fact" and an "attorney at law" are two different things. An attorney in fact is not a lawyer (unless he or she also happens to be licensed as a lawyer, as an attorney at law). Instead, an attorney in fact is a kind of "agent." For example, you could grant a friend a "power of attorney" to sign contract on your behalf. That person does not have to be a lawyer (an attorney at law) to do that.
Generally, you don't give someone a "power of attorney" to represent you in court. You simply retain or hire an attorney at law to represent you in court. Famspear (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

IRS founded in 1862[edit]

Congress collected taxes prior to 1862 and did not use the IRS. From the IRS website:

The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses.

http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html I'm going to delete material not pertinent to IRS. Lionelt (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree on Lionelt's point about deleting the non-pertinent material. This is an article specifically about the IRS, not about the history of tax collection in general, etc. Famspear (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with both of you, but I think that by Lionelt deleting the material, the beginning of the history section has been left very awkward. Starting the Civil War section with "Tensions around the post-colonial tax system led directly ..." is completely out of context. Perhaps the prior history can be summed up in a sentence or two as a lead-in to the discussion of the founding of the IRS, or else a better start to section can be written. -- DS1953 talk 02:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
You can not state that the IRS was started in 1862, as it did not, it was merely an (unconstitutional) income tax over the Civil War. They can only claim the time back until 1918, when the tax was declared constitutional by the 16th Amendment, and the name was first used. This whole thing smacks of a government PR article than a proper encyclopedia article.Craxd (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. The taxes from the Revenue Act 1862 were almost certainly constitutional. The Pollack case found some taxes from the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional. Key word is some - basically it said taxes on income from dividends, interest and property (rentals) were direct taxes and unapportioned and hence unconstitutional. It didn't say anything about income taxes in general being unconstitutional. The 16th amendment didn't so much as grant a new power as remove a limitation (that direct taxes must be apportioned) on an existing power. You could argue that the IRS has it's roots in the Office created by the 1862 law but that's about it. Ravensfire (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

IRS Template?[edit]

Is there an IRS template on Wikipedia that points to sections of IRS Code? Something similar to {{usc}}? — Timneu22 · talk 12:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Budget[edit]

The article does not mention what the yearly cost/budget of the IRS is. Does anyone have this information, and if so, can they add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.162.156 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I added an estimate based on data from the Office of Management and Budget of the Executive Office of the President: Over $12 billion for the IRS for fiscal year 2011. Famspear (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: The statistics for what the IRS collects are for fiscal year 2006, while the statistics for what the IRS spends are for 2009 and 2011. Maybe this can be updated later to compare "apples to apples." Nevertheless, the current presentation at least gives a rough estimate: The cost to run the IRS is about a half of one percent of what the IRS collects ($12.6 billion divided by $2.2 trillion would be about 1/2 of one percent). Famspear (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Question???? Are the rules and regulations for the Federal IRS the same in all 50 states ? OR do they vary from state to state? Justme16145 (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The short answer is that the rules and regulations are the same in all states. Generally, U.S. federal agencies don't vary their regulations by state. There might be a few "effective" exceptions to that rule, but I know of none off the top of my head, if you mean something along the lines of "OK, here's the rule we're declaring for Montana, but we're declaring the rule to be different for Georgia."
The effect of federal tax laws can vary from state to state in the sense that in some cases, federal law looks to STATE law for the rule. For example, when the answer to a federal tax question depends on who owns a piece of property, state law on property ownership (which can vary from state to state) will often have an impact on the answer to the federal tax question. But that's not a situation where the federal tax regulation itself is "different" from one state to another. It's the state laws that are different.
There are a few federal tax statutes or regulations that EFFECTIVELY apply differently in different states because of circumstances. For example, there were special rules after Hurricane Katrina, which rules affected people affected by the storm. Since the vast majority of people affected were in Louisiana, you could say that the effect of the federal tax laws or regulations benefited people more disproportionately in Louisiana than in, say, North Dakota. Famspear (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

CARRY OVER DEDUCTIONS FRO 1 YEAR TO TE NEXT WHAT ARE THEY[edit]

1. WHAT TAX DEDUCTIONS ARE AQLLOW TO CARRY OVER TO NEXT YEAR? 2.EMAILS RHAYNES923@ATT.NET 3. HOW DO I FIND OUT TAX INFO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.222.201 (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Just go to www.IRS.gov and look it up. This forum is not the place for tax advice. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

IRS program to audit wealthy slammed[edit]

A small headline of page B1 of the April 11, 2012 USA today hardcopy - can't find it on the web. It talks about an IRS program to focus auditning on returns of American with incomes in the tens of millions. Ir says so far only 36 audits have been completed since 2009 out of 8,274. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Ottawahitech (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I found this related article on the web http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2012-01-06/IRS-audits/52411620/1 Ottawahitech (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

EXCESS TO PERSONAL TAX INFROMATION FOR PUBLICK[edit]

WHO IN THE GOVERMENT HAS EXCESS TO TAX INFORMATION ON ANY TAX PAYER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.246.75.30 (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Lots of personnel at the Internal Revenue Service have access to tax information on taxpayers generally. There are legal restrictions on how personnel may look at personal tax information. The rules on that are voluminous and complex. Famspear (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of history missing[edit]

The 16th amendment gets passed, then *nothing happens for sixty years* till Nixon's return gets leaked? There were two World Wars and a police action in that time...how did the IRS support the troops, as one example of interesting history. IRS and ccomputers. IRS and civil rights. There must be more! --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There's more than that missing, especially about the start of Federal Reserve, and the end to the Great Depression around 1939, and through WWII.Craxd (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

But we've got paragraphs of Wikiprose about minute adjustments to the IRS budge in one recent year. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Contractors[edit]

Braulio Castillo is the president and chief executive officer of Strong Castle, a Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) and a Minority Owned Small Business that has been providing information technology solutions to commercial and government clients since 1994.[1] Until 2012, the firm was known as Signet Computers, Incorporated. Within months of the name change, the firm had hundreds of millions of dollars worth of government contracts, mostly with the Internal Revenue Service.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ Strong Castle website, retrieved 29 June, 2013, http://www.strong-castle.com/index.php/who-we-are/executive-team
  2. ^ Probe: IRS contractor won up to $500 million in questionable bids, by Nancy Cordes, CBS Evening News, 25 June 2013
  3. ^ Gov’t contractor claiming disability gets a tongue-lashing on Capitol Hill, Capitol hill Report, by Rob Nikolewski

IRS during Prohibition?[edit]

Wouldn't IRS' activities during the Prohibition merit a section of its own, or at least a mention? According to the article Prohibition in the United States, one of three federal authorities responsible for enforcing Prohibition was the US Treasury Department IRS Bureau of Prohibition. A section on Prohibition could include a reference to the IRS' famous role in convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

Mojowiha (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Renting from a non-profit company[edit]

I have a concession business, and I am trying to make a profit, and I would like to rent a kitchen from a church, that's non-profit. Can this work? I have been trying to get an answer, but information is slow.96.26.160.83 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Try the reference desk, rather than here. Still, the answer is, you can, but the non-profit would have to pay taxes on the unrelated rental income. Please use the Usenet group misc.taxes or (if you want a serious answer misc.taxes.moderated), or pay service such as Just Answer (ask for me by name). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

New information needs to be added to wikipedia?"[edit]

XOttawahitech (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

First one, probably not. It's just one year. If anything, it would go into an article on the effects of the government shutdown. The second one, nope per WP:CRYSTAL. It's a proposed bill that will quite probably die in committee (like most proposed bills). Ravensfire (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious material removed[edit]

The following material has been removed:

It was later shown that the 2013 IRS "scandal" was in fact, entirely manufactured by Darrell Issa, the chair of the House Oversight Committee. He requested a report from the IRS Inspector General, but requested that only audits of conservative groups be included on the report. It was later revealed that the IRS also "targeted" liberal groups, and that the only group that was denied tax exempt status, was in fact, a liberal group. Despite these revelations, Chairman Issa has continued to make the assertion that only conservative groups were targeted.

(footnotes not reproduced.

I largely agree that the scandal is overblown. However, the matter certainly was not "entirely manufactured" by Mr. Issa, and I doubt that the Treasury Inspector General would accede to a request by Mr. Issa that "only audits of conservative groups be included on the report." Wikipedia itself cannot take these kinds of positions. If these are reliable sources making these claims, the text of a Wikipedia article should be clear that it is the SOURCE making the claim, not Wikipedia itself. Further, Wikipedia already has an extensive article on this very topic. Famspear (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

filing tax returns[edit]

I was not employed all year and received social security because I;m 72. I own my own home. Can I file and claim the interest I paid to the bank? Thank you Diane Daniels — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.241.202 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Contact me personally for a simple answer, or contact a professional for a more precise answer. The question is inappropriate for an article talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Last paragraph changes[edit]

I changed the final paragraph (about the hacking incident in May 2015) slightly. The previous version reported that the IRS had "leaked" the private tax information of 100,000 taxpayers, following the language in the Forbes blog headline. This doesn't seem quite right; "leaking" information in this context would suggest that it was provided intentionally to a third party. I tweaked it to better match what the source actually says happened. drseudo (t) — Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Internal Revenue Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Internal Revenue Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Who owns the IRS?[edit]

The Internal Revenue Service is not part of the Federal Government (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.; Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148, pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law 102-391). Since the IRS is a foreign private corporation of the International Monetary Fund, should't the article mention its owner? Wilibald oplatek (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Total baloney. We're already been through this -- including the Diversified Metals case -- over and over and over and over again. This is frivolous tax protester rhetoric. And you are very, very late to the game. This is the kind of garbage that was being posted back in 2005 and 2006.

The Internal Revenue Service is not a foreign private corporation of anything, much less the International Monetary Fund. It's a bureau and an agency within the United States Department of the Treasury.

Stop reading garbage web sites. Famspear (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

To rehash old news: In the Diversified Metal case, a government lawyer incorrectly stated that the Internal Revenue Service was not an agency of the government. The lawyer should have stated, "The IRS is an agency of the government, and has no capacity to be sued." Government lawyers, like all lawyers, make incorrect statements about the law from time to time. Further, in Diversified Metal, the Court itself stated: "The Internal Revenue Service, and not the United States, was originally named as defendant in this action. However, the United States is correct that the Internal Revenue Service has no capacity to sue or be sued. Blackmar v. Guerre, 342 U.S. 512, 514 (1952). Therefore, the United States is properly substituted for the Internal Revenue Service in this action." The Court was stating what every tax lawyer already knows (or should know): the proper party defendant in most tax cases against the Federal government is "United States of America" and not "Department of the Treasury" or "Secretary of the Treasury" or "Internal Revenue Service." This is a separate concept from the question of whether the IRS is a bureau or agency within the Department of the Treasury, which it certainly is.
Further, none of other materials you cited make the preposterous claim that the IRS is a "foreign private corporation" or that the IRS is affiliated with the International Monetary Fund. You need to read the materials you are citing, rather than copying and pasting from nonsense web sites you have found. Famspear (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

R01k[edit]

Does the IRS allow companies to withhold employees personal investment after quitting or being terminated from a job for an extended period of time Adam J Malek (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internal Revenue Service article. This is not an appropriate forum for your tax questions. Deli nk (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

401k[edit]

Does the IRS allow a company to withhold employee RX employees personal investment in their 401K after no longer being employed with the company Adam J Malek (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

See question above. Deli nk (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Internal Revenue Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)