by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, TAXES
Many people this year are startled to find that the IRS is holding some or all of the portions of their tax return as a form of payment for old debt. Many so called debts are decades-old and often the debt is not even the debt of the taxpayer being targeted.
How did this happen? The first part of the process began in 2008, when Congress passed HR6124, The “Food, Conservation, and Energy Act 0f 2008”, commonly known as the “Farm Bill”. On page 594-594 of the 662 page document, Section 14219 reads. “Elimination of statute of limitations applicable to collection of debt by administrative offset”.
(a) ELIMINATION.—Section 3716(e) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows: ‘‘(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation,
or administrative limitation, no limitation on the period within which an offset may be initiated or taken pursuant to this section shall be effective. (2) This section does not apply when a statute explicitly prohibits using administrative offset of setoff to collect the claim or type of claim involved.” (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT — The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any debt outstanding on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
As a result of this legislation, the Department of the Treasury issued 74 FR 68537: “OFFSET OF TAX REFUND PAYMENTS TO COLLECT PAST-DUE, LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE NONTAX DEBT” on December 28, 2009. The Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service made changes to it how it dealt with non-tax debts owed by taxpayers. This rule allowed the “ offset of Federal tax refunds irrespective of the amount of time the debt has been outstanding”.
I. Background
“The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110–234,
Section 14219, 22 Stat. 923 (2008) (‘‘the Act’’) amended the Debt Collection Act
of 1982 (as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996) to
authorize the offset of Federal nontax payments (for example, contract and salary payments) to collect delinquent Federal debt without regard to the amount of time the debt has been delinquent. Prior to this change, nontax payments could be offset only to collect
debt that was delinquent for a period of less than ten years. There is no similar time limitation in the statutes authorizing offset of Federal tax refund payments to collect Federal
nontax debts (see 26 U.S.C. 6402(a) and 31 U.S.C. 3720A). However, Treasury had imposed a time limitation on collection of debts by tax refund offset in order to create uniformity in the way that it offset payments. Now that the ten-year limitation has been eliminated for the offset of nontax payments, the rationale for including a ten-year limitation for the offset of tax refund payments no longer applies.
Therefore, on June 11, 2009, Treasury issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to remove the limitations period by explicitly stating that no time limitation shall apply. See 74 FR 27730. The proposed rule explained that by removing the time limitation, all Federal nontax debts, including debts that were ineligible for collection by offset prior to the removal of the limitations period, may now be collected by tax refund offset. Additionally, to avoid any undue hardship, Treasury proposed the addition of a notice requirement applicable to debts that were previously ineligible for collection by offset because they had been outstanding for more than ten years. For such debts, creditor agencies must certify to FMS that a notice of intent to offset was sent to the debtor after the debt became ten years delinquent. This notice of intent to offset is meant to alert the debtor that any debt the taxpayer owes to the United States may now be collected by offset, even if it is greater than ten years delinquent. It also allows the debtor additional opportunities to dispute the debt, enter into a repayment agreement or otherwise avoid offset. This requirement will apply even in a case where notice was sent prior to the debt becoming ten years old. This requirement applies only with respect to debts that were previously ineligible for collection by offset because of the previous time limitation. Accordingly, it does not apply with respect to debts that could be collected by offset without regard to any time limitation prior to this regulatory change—for example, Department of Education student loan debts.”
The ramifications of this rule change has been far reaching. One agency, the IRS, has used it to justify going after old debts by holding tax refunds. This is a growing problem, because the agency has begun going after relatives of the phantom debt, not the debt-holder themselves.
According to the Treasury rule, “For such debts, creditor agencies must certify to FMS
that a notice of intent to offset was sent to the debtor after the debt became ten years delinquent. This notice of intent to offset is meant to alert the debtor that any debt the taxpayer owes to the United States may now be collected by offset, even if it is greater than ten years delinquent”.
The rule does not state “relative of the debtor”. In several instances this year alone, the targeted person was a relative of the debt-holder, not the debt-holder themselves, and every one of them stated they received no notice or advance warning from the IRS before the IRS decided to withhold their refund. The IRS has no right to do so.
There exists a process called “transferee liability” where the IRS can go after the debts of a relative. It is a high burden process and is not done easily. Such a scenario might be if a person died with $100,000 in a bank account, which was bequeathed to a child. Then later, it was revealed that the original account holder owed the IRS, which really should have been discovered by the person doing the estate process, and thus the money received by bequeathment could be considered as being received under false pretenses. The IRS in this situation could make a case, under “transferee liability”, that it has a right to go after the relative for that money.
Obviously, this above scenario is much different than resurrecting decades-old debt via an obscure provision in a 662 page bill. Those affected by it should demand proof of debt as well as argue that the debt is not theirs. However, in the cases where the IRS merely held the tax refund, the “debtor” did not receive due process and is at the mercy of trying to deal with a convoluted, poorly run government agency. Most people do not have the time or means to fight back. This action taken by the IRS is legal plunder, plain and simple.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
It’s the spending, stupid.
CNS News reported today that “Federal tax revenues continue to run at a record pace in fiscal 2014, as the federal government’s total receipts for the fiscal year closed April at $1,735,030,000,000, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.
Despite this record revenue, the federal government still ran a deficit of $306.411 billion in the first seven months of the fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, 2013 and will end on Sept. 30, 2014”.
The White House Office of Management and Budget has put out the following estimates for 2014: revenues will be $3.001721 trillion in taxes with spending estimated to be $3.650526 trillion — thereby running a deficit of $648.805 billion.
The problem isn’t lack of taxes. “The single largest source for the federal government’s record tax receipts in the first seven months of FY 2014 was the individual income tax, which brought the Treasury $823.079 billion”
The problem is egregious spending.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS
Oh, the hypocrisy!
In February, it was announced that retired hedge-fund billionaire Tom Steyer, has committed $100 million of his own money to “to make climate change a priority issue in this year’s midterm elections.”
How can this possibly be? First, Steyer made his millions as a hedge-fund operator — which is typically and universally denounced as a greedy profession. But if he spends his greedy millions on items considered tolerable and suitable to the political Left, it’s becomes okay.
That same political Left decries the Koch Brothers who are accused of funding groups with their obscene amounts of money to promote policy positions. The Koch Brothers made their money as businessmen, which clearly is repugnant. It begs the question: why does Harry Reid go after the Koch Brothers and turns a blind eye to Steyer’s tactics?
In reality, what Tom Steyer is doing is much worse. Steyer is essentially telling a political candidate, “if you take this position, I will give you money”. Isn’t this line of thinking exactly what the Supreme Court was trying to stop? How is this okay? Because it works for the Left.
Steyer’s game proved effective in 2013 when his NextGen Climate Action Super Pac spend $2.5 million to target conservative-leaning coal areas of Southwest Virginia on behalf of Democrat gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe. Coupled with Mayor Bloomberg’s Independence USA Super PAC which spent roughly $2 million on ads in Virginia to target Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli’s position on gun-rights, the two out-of-staters helped lead the Democrat to victory.
Steyer’s next plan is to influence the 2014 midterms. His money is planning on being spent on “attack ads during the election, including the Florida governor’s race and the Iowa Senate race.
Clearly, Steyer’s actions are appropriate for the 2014 elections, because political candidates with the “proper positions” are able to benefit from Steyer’s “generosity”. Yet in contrast, other organizations are called out for being “tainted” by the Koch Brothers for merely promoting various policies that the Left deems unacceptable. Either it’s okay for both, or for neither.
The double standard prevails.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
Bernie Sanders recently chose to test the waters of a possible Presidential campaign by weighing in on the deliberations regarding the Post Office. Thankfully, we have this Op-Ed so early on, because it reveals Sanders’ complete and utter inability to comprehend basic economics and accounting.
Bernie argues two main points: 1) the Post Office is not broke and 2) those who believe it is are “anti-government”, “wealthy special interest”, profit-seeking, or all of the above. These points rest entirely on his premise that pre-funding health benefits to postal workers is a very bad thing.
Sanders actually believes that planning for future promised benefits is not a fiscally sound practice. If he feels this way about the Post Office, surely he feels the same about Social Security and Medicare (two programs who have trillions in future liabilities). Does Sanders know that his type of accounting would land any business executive in jail?
Sanders says that if we didn’t have to pre-fund future benefits, than the Post Office would make a profit. Simple, right?
What he fails to mention that if we didn’t pre-fund benefits, the Post Office would merely be sloughing off paying its promises to some future nebulous day and time for some other taxpayers else to take care of –only when its liabilities were astronomical and the finances were on the edge of a precipice.
That result is precisely what we are facing programs like Social Security, Medicare, and many defined benefits plans across the country: politicians made future monetary promises without planning for them, and now the economic pressure has ballooned into severe fiscal instability. Sanders belongs to the ‘spend first, fix (maybe) later” group of bureaucrats who refuse to follow basic accounting practices like any business would be required to practice.
With the Post Office, we actually have an quasi-government entity following good, non-gimmick accounting so taxpayers can see first-hand the true financial picture (current and future) of the post-office. Pre-funding benefits to account for future and current liabilities is a proper and healthy way to do business. And if the Post Office cannot turn a profit while protecting its current and future liabilities, than it must make changes to its business operations
By repealing the legislation to pay for future liabilities, Bernie Sanders is ostensibly demanding someone in the future — your kids and grandkids — to clean up the mess of his government and his generation’s deliberately poor financial planning.
Which bring us two his second point. Bernie Sanders does what the Left does best, which is resort to name calling, straw-man arguments to build up his weak ideas. Sanders actually thinks that those who wish to pass on a health economic future while practice basic and principled accounting practices are anti-government, bought-and-paid-for, or profit-mongers. No, Mr. Sanders, we only wish for the government and its entities to practice the same kind of accounting standards that any other business or family is required to do.
Watch out, America — Bernie Sanders is just more of the same. Another bureaucratic imbecile who refuses to face economic and financial realities when it comes to the Post Office — or any big government program which deals with current and future liabilities. Sanders would rather pass the buck to the next generation in order to save a few union jobs.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The IRS recently proposed major changes to the way not-for-profit 501c4 organizations operate, which would effectively and severely limit their ability to engage in advocacy. These are your social welfare organizations, for which advocacy for “the common good and general welfare” is their primary purpose. They differ from 501c3, which are your charitable organizations; 501c5s, your labor unions; and 501c6s, your trade organizations. The one thing all of these organizations do have in common is that they are all tax-exempt organizations.
501c4s are not tax-deductible precisely because they are not political organizations. They serve to educate by being issue-based. This is protected under free speech; so long as the 501c4 sticks to an issue and not advocate for a particular candidate, it is not considered political speech and therefore it cannot be curbed. They can talk about policies and positions, not people.
These social welfare groups can therefore participate in the political arena as long as they maintain education as their primary purpose. Some examples of 501c4s would be the National Rifle Association (NRA), American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), and the Sierra Club. 501(c)4s have been around for nearly 100 years, and the regulations that currently govern them have been in place since 1959.
So why has the Obama administration and the IRS taken a sudden interest in clarifying the rules for social welfare organizations that have been in place for more than 50 years? And why only the social welfare organizations, not the unions or trade organizations?
It is well known that on issue-based advocacy, the Republicans have made much better use of 501c4s than the Democrats. So of course, the Democrats want to find a way to disrupt this. You can find a flood of recent articles documenting how this conservative group and that conservative group spent money on political ads, more than the liberal groups–as if that is somehow unfair. It’s perfectly fair and perfectly legal — except when the Democrats are on the losing/receiving end.
This situation is reminiscent of the attempt to implement the “Fairness Doctrine” for talk radio, pushing to give conservative and liberal talk radio shows “equal air time” — because the conservatives dominate that market as well.
The 2014 Democrats are vulnerable, and they know it. What better way to stifle the ability for conservatives to message (foremost on the fledgling Obamacare law) than by attacking the methodology? The Obama Administration is retaliating by using the IRS to propose changes to the way social welfare organizations function and introducing very specific and onerous rules. These rules that have not been necessary at all for the entirety of the time (nearly a century) 501c4s have been in existence — until suddenly now.
What the new policy does is make definitions of political activity, specifically creating a huge number of things to now be considered “political”. The regs “would explicitly define which kind of activities are political and fall outside of the social welfare category, forcing such groups to be more careful about how they spend their funds. Under the proposed regulation, “candidate-related political activities” would include running ads that mention candidates close to Election Day, preparing voter guides or holding voter registration drives”.
By defining such activities as “political” instead of advocacy, they would be opened to being limited or even banned — activities which serve to provide education for the common good, as they always have.
Critics of the way 501c4s operate, which allow their donors to remain protected, suggest that the 501c4s are somehow gaming the system — using phrases like “secret donors” and “secret activity” to inflame the public against 501c4s. But this is patently untrue.
Political donors are required to be disclosed under campaign finance, but since 501c4s are specifically not political organizations, the donor names do not need to be made public. Their anonymity is protected under the Right of Free Association. Those who are on the receiving end of 501c4 activities to educate the populace during the election cycle, however, are now pushing for this to change in order to reveal citizens identities.
Therefore turning a simple and known definition of a 501c4 into a new and incomprehensible one, has the effect of stifling speech. Even the mere presence of such a proposal has had detrimental repercussions.
The regulation triggered more public commentary– tens of thousands of responses — during the open comment timeframe that recently ended, than any other regulation in history. Because of the outcry, there is a strong likelihood that it the proposed changes will be rescinded. How it even was allowed to come to fruition is mind-boggling.
It is possible that the persons who drafted the legislation didn’t even care about its clarity or effects. Every day that the proposal is even out there is another day that these 501c4s either a) can’t get started or b) can’t engage in advocacy. Why? The possibility of these regulations becoming permanent rules has 501c4s worried about potential infractions. After the recent revelations about the IRS targeting last year, it is not unlikely to think that the IRS purposely crafted muddled regulations.
From the vantage point of the 2014 midterm elections, the effect of curbing or scaring the activity of 501c4s during this election cycle undoubtedly benefits the Democrats.
What organization would risk the potential for increased scrutiny and possible violation from the IRS, knowing that the IRS has been operating in an unjust and partisan matter? They wouldn’t of course. So the 501c4s are currently holding back.
The IRS continues to act in an incompetent manner. That they are targeting 501c4s, and not c5s and c6s, show that there is an inherent bias internally within the IRS. No one can look at the situation and not think that this wasn’t done to have an affect on the current political cycle. This is not how the IRS is supposed to function in our country.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS
Mat Staver from the Liberty Council put together a good overview of the proposed changes to Social Welfare Organizations (501c4s). Below is a partial list that attempts to define political activity, changing the language that has stood for more than 50 years.
“IRS Regulation-134417-13, “Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities,” is a proposed new regulation that is an outrageously brazen attempt by the IRS to silence the speech of 501(c)(4) organizations before the upcoming election. If implemented, the regulation would prohibit a 501(c)(4) from speaking to matters of public concern during the 2014 election cycle.
In part, the proposed regulation:
–Prohibits using words like “oppose,” “vote,” “support,” “defeat,” and “reject;”
–Prohibits mentioning, on its website or on any communication (email, letter, etc.) that would reach 500 people or more, the name of a candidate for office 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election;
–Prohibits mentioning the name of a political party 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election, if that party has a candidate running for office;
–Prohibits voter registration drives or conducting a nonpartisan “get-out-the-vote” drive;
–Prohibits creating or distributing voter guides outlining how incumbents voted on particular bills;
–Prohibits hosting candidates for office at any event, including debates and charitable fundraisers, 30 days prior to a primary election or 60 days prior to a general election, if the candidate is part of the event’s program;
–Prohibits distributing any materials prepared on behalf of a candidate for office;
–Restricts employees of such organizations from volunteering;
–Restricts the ability of officers and leaders of such organizations to make public statements regarding the nomination of judges;
–Creates a 90-day blackout period, in an election year, that restricts the speech of §501(c)(4) organizations;
–Declares political activity as contrary to the promotion of social welfare; and
–Protects labor unions and trade associations by not including them under the proposed regulations.
The proposed IRS regulation even restricts the ability of leaders within these organizations to speak publicly regarding legislative matters of public concern and to volunteer”
Tens of thousands of comments have been recorded during the IRS open comment session, which has now closed. While the 501c4s wait to hear the outcome, many have chosen not to be active right now, which is having an impact on the current 2014 election cycle..
by | ARTICLES, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The Washington Times reports that the IRS will not be able to finish their investigation regarding the targeting of Tea Party and other groups, until far after the 2014 elections:
“John Koskinen, the man President Obama tapped to clean up the embattled agency, also said it will take years to respond to all of the document requests from Congress. He told Congress that even complying with a subpoena for emails from just a handful of key employees couldn’t be done before the end of this year because it takes time to have attorneys delete protected taxpayer information”.
It is quite convenient that there will be no resolution to the IRS scandal before the midterm elections, especially on top of the new proposed IRS regulations regarding 501(c)4s.
The IRS is an agency that needs to clean house from top to bottom.
by | ARTICLES, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
So, the tax that was supposed to hit high income earners now also can affect children under certain conditions involving investment. Taxpayers — take note!
The Weekly Standard discusses a newly clarified component of the Obamacare 3.8% Investment Surcharge Tax:
“Last Friday, the IRS published a tip on its website entitled “Tax Rules for Children with Investment Income.” Included is this note regarding the Net Investment Tax [emphasis added]:
Starting in 2013, a child whose tax is figured on Form 8615 may be subject to the Net Investment Income Tax. NIIT is a 3.8% tax on the lesser of either net investment income or the excess of the child’s modified adjusted gross income that is over a threshold amount”
by | OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
This is pretty clever
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS
During Bob Beckel’s recent appearance on “Cashin In”, Bob stated that “Wall Street investment bankers should be in jail because they nearly threw this country into depression”. This statement is quite ridiculous. Since when is the economic cycle grounds for throwing people in jail?
Bob Beckel has absolutely no information that anybody from Wall Street who committed any wrongdoing has not already been appropriately prosecuted. There is no more evidence that any of these people should be in jail than there is evidence that the economic recession was caused by Bob Beckel and his statements on television. Bob Beckel’s cluelessness was further demonstrated by his comment that implied that he did not believe that executive compensation is reduced even when companies were losing money! Does he have no contact whatsoever with the economic world?
It is quite clear that the major course of the recent meltdown was government activities creating an environment for making real estate loans that never should have been made. A short trip down memory lane through Youtube and the unconscionable congressional hearings moderated by Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd should be enough to remind Beckel of the real economic culprits.
It was all too obvious that when the Republicans tried to rein in this overextended lending policy of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they were viciously attacked as scare mongers and racists. For Bob Beckel to insist that unnamed Wall Street groups performed criminal activities in connection with this economic meltdown is incredibly irresponsible. From an evidentiary point of view, it is just as likely that Beckel committed criminal activities.
