by | ARTICLES, BLOG, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
(h/t) pjmedia
With all the reports coming in fast and furiously from different news agencies, here’s a pieced-together timeline of events. The information below is a timeline of events taken from numerous media outlets with their links provided.
Early 2010:
WSJ: The report [Inspector General’s report due out this week] indicates that in 2010 and 2011, some IRS workers weren’t just singling out groups because their names contained certain words, as IRS officials suggested on Friday [May 12], but appeared to be probing for indications of political interests or leanings.
March 2010:
Washington Post: The IRS targeted We the People, Take Back the Country, and 9/12, a group founded by political commentator Glenn Beck, starting around March 2010, according to a TIGTA timeline provided to congressional staff.
Also in 2010:
Jewish Press: the passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was “connected to Israel,” its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy reveiw of Z STREET’s tax exempt status application.
In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies”
March 2011:
WaPo: The report is being prepared at the request of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which asked in March 2011 for an audit of the IRS’s tax-exempt unit amid complaints from conservative groups who were seeking tax-exempt status.
Mid 2011:
WSJ: The investigation also revealed that a high-ranking IRS official knew as early as mid-2011 that conservative groups were being inappropriately targeted—nearly a year before then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman told a congressional committee the agency wasn’t targeting conservative groups.
June 2011
WSJ: According to the report, by June 2011 some IRS specialists were probing applications using the following criteria: “issues include government spending, government debt or taxes; education of the public by advocacy/lobbying to ‘make America a better place to live’; statements in the case file criticize how the country is being run.”
June 29, 2011
AP: 2011: Lois G. Lerner, who heads the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, said last week that the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati and was not motivated by political bias.
But on June 29, 2011, Lerner learned at a meeting that groups were being targeted, according to the watchdog’s report. At the meeting, she was told that groups with “Tea Party,” `’Patriot” or “9/12 Project” in their names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, the report says.
July 2011
WaPo The IRS switched to more generic search criteria in July 2011 due to concerns from senior agency officials, the timeline said.
and
WSJ The report’s timeline indicates that the criteria were changed to be more neutral in July 2011 after Ms. Lerner “raised concerns.” The criteria for heightened scrutiny continued to evolve over the next year or so, even as complaints from tea-party groups—and questions from GOP lawmakers—mounted over IRS inquiries to various groups about their activities.
Late 2011 – Mid 2012
WaPo: The IRS made no mention of targeting conservative groups in five separate responses to congressional inquiries between Nov. 18, 2011, and June 15, 2012, according to the TIGTA timeline.
January 2012
Reuters But then [instruction] changed again in January 2012 to cover “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement,” according to the findings contained in a Treasury Department watchdog report”
March 2,2012
NRO reports on the American Center for Law and Justice’s (ACLJ) interaction with tea party groups which had been receiving missives from the IRS to find out more about their activities
March 2012
WSJ The IRS also said the report reflects that “IRS senior leadership was not aware of this level of specific details” at the time of a March 2012 hearing where Mr. Shulman denied any targeting of conservative groups. Mr. Shulman, who no longer works for the IRS, declined to comment”
April – May 2012
WSJ Letters from Ms. Lerner in April and May 2012 responding to questions by Republican lawmakers made no mention of the problems that had surfaced in the IRS unit.
According to the draft report, on April 24 and 25 of last year, officials in Ms. Lerner’s office were reviewing “troubling questions” that had been asked of organizations, including “the names of donors.”
Ms. Lerner’s April 26 {2012} letter to Mr. Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that “there are instances where donor information may be needed…such as when the application presents possible issues of…private benefit.”
May 2012
Reuters The criteria for scrutiny were revised again to cover a variety of tax-exempt groups “with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit),” according to a TIGTA timeline included in the findings.
Other Factoids:
WaPo: Lerner said that about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including, in some cases, improper requests for the names of donors, but added that the targeting was not driven by partisan motives.
AP: The report also said that the IRS asked “unnecessary questions” of conservative groups, according to the aide.The IRS’ Lerner said that about 300 groups were singled out for additional review, with about one-quarter scrutinized because they had “tea party” or “patriot” somewhere in their applications. She said 150 of the cases have been closed and no group had its tax-exempt status revoked, though some withdrew their applications.
The Anatomy of an IRS Process:
The Richmond Tea Party has been blogging about their interactions with the IRS since they began their IRS status request on December 28, 2009. Included in their reporting has dates and document links. You can read the overview here: and the chronicles of the Richmond Tea Party here
As more information comes out, I will update this timeline accordingly.
UPDATE: David Plouffe, former WH advisor, suggests: “What IRS did dumb and wrong. Impt to note GOP groups flourished last 2 elections, overwhelming Ds. And they will use this to raise more $” REALLY?s
FLASHBACK: Obama jokes in 2009 about the IRS auditing people — and a thoughtful responsive essay in the WSJ and a chilling prophecy: Should the IRS come to be seen as just a bunch of enforcers for whoever is in political power, the result would be an enormous loss of legitimacy for the tax system.” Indeed.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, POLITICS, TAXES
We need more of your money!
The Senate passed the online sales tax bill, formally known as the “Marketplace Fairness Act”. There is nothing fair about this act. It is a back-door way for states to add additional levies on their citizens under the guise of leveling the playing field . From an accountant’s perspective, here’s how:
Most proponents of the bill suggest that there is somehow a dearth of tax revenue from which states are suffering. This sentiment was echoed in the pages of the WSJ by Arthur Laffer. He wrote that “the exemption of Internet and out-of-state retailers from collecting state sales taxes reduced state revenues by $23.3 billion in 2012 alone, according to an estimate by the National Conference of State Legislatures. The absence of these revenues has not served to put a lid on state-government spending. Instead, it has led to higher marginal rates in the 43 states that levy income taxes”.
This is simply untrue. State legislatures have always set their tax rates with the full understanding that they would not collect that supposed $23.3 billion of internet “slippage”. It’s not like there is a line item in state budgets that lists “uncollected online tax” or “tax cheats” with a number attached. Sales tax is one of many levies whose revenues positively fund government spending. This online tax, if passed by the House next and signed into law, will just be yet another tax (and therefore revenue) for the coffers. Higher marginal rates exists because state-government spending levels are higher, not because of some “absence of tax” that forces states to raise rates.
In our states’ budgets, current taxes rates (income + sales, if applicable) are set at levels appropriate to cover the calculations of state spending. 49 out of 50 states require a balanced budget. These states are fully aware that taxes are “avoided” (internet and out-of-state) and therefore don’t count them in their budget calculations. Thus, by passing this new internet tax, you are merely giving the states a free reign to add a tax without taking the political heat for it, under the guise of “fairness”.
Looked at it another way, it is unconscionable for Congress to pass this legislation without requiring that states lower their marginal rates so that the new tax makes everything revenue neutral. Higher marginal rates as they are already burden taxpayers. This internet tax doesn’t fix anything — because there is nothing in their budgets to be “fixed”. True tax reform (a true “fix”) always means broadening the base and thereby reducing the overall burden of taxes. Instead of that, what we have with this bill is a revenue grab.
Another fallacy for supporters is that including the internet tax in transactions is simply a matter of adding a quick, little tax line where there was none before. But it is highly irrational for legislators to believe that compliance with multiple tax jurisdictions for vendors will be an easy and unburdensome process. The recordkeeping will be excruciating.
This tax nightmare is similar to the 1099 fiasco originally included in Obamacare a couple of years ago, which expanded the reporting requirements to include all payments from businesses aggregating $600 or more in a calendar year to a single payee. Because of the insurmountable amount of reporting and paperwork that would have been associated with it, that provision was swiftly and subsequently repealed.
The effect of distressing our businesses to comply with this online tax collection will be a drag on the economy. Can you imagine vendors needing to figure such things as whether marshmallows are a taxable food/candy in some jurisdictions while it might be a non-taxable food in others? To think that software can seamlessly make this distinction is ludicrous, especially software run by the government. When has the government ever actually streamlined anything? And implementing such a convoluted tax while businesses are already having to deal with sorting out the egregious complexities of Obamacare compliance will certainly hurt businesses even more.
Internet tax collection for 9,600 local tax jurisdictions or even just 50 states is too much. If such a tax is to be passed, it should be either a tax in which every state accepts one set of rules OR a tax payable to the state-of-sale only — which would ultimately be better for tax competition overall.
The economy is suffering enough. Adding yet another tax for citizens, which also requires burdensome compliance for businesses, is not the way to do it. Laffer was correct when he observed that “the principle of levying the lowest possible tax rate on the broadest possible tax base is the way to improve the incentives to work, save and produce—which are necessary to reinvigorate the American economy and cope with the nation’s fiscal problems”. This proposed tax doesn’t do that. In its current form, it is just another revenue stream for our bloated, overspending government.
This is no “Marketplace Fairness Act”. It is an atrocity.
by | BLOG, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Shhh! Don’t tell anyone your taxes are going up!
A couple of weeks ago, I spoke at a gathering of higher-income earners. The bulk of the discussion was a comparison of what this bracket of folks just paid in 2012 vs what they will pay in higher taxes in 2013. Some of those taxes had to do with the implementation of Obamacare and the new taxes associated with it.
However, many do not realize that Obamacare taxes, (levies created to help pay for the legislation) do not only affect high income earners. With the report out yesterday that 42% of Americans don’t realize that Obamacare is the law of the land, it is certain that many also don’t know that there are taxes — besides the “penalty” — that will affect many average Americans.
Say what you will about ATR; however, they have been one of the few organizations who have chronicled continuously since Obamacare was written, the various taxes that will be/have been imposed at various stages in the game during this Obamacare roll-out. From the perspective of a CPA like myself, having a list compiled together is very useful. Now that tax season is over, it is never to early to think about next year.
Below is a summary of new Obamacare taxes just for 2013,. These will affect (and probably shock) many Americans when they file their taxes next year.
“Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income: A new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This tax hike results in the following top tax rates on investment income:
Capital Gains: 23.8%
Dividends: 43.4%
Other* 43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. (Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93)
Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Increase:
Pre-Obamacare:
First $200,000, ($250,000 Married) Employer/Employee: 1.45%/1.45%; 2.9% self-employed
All Remaining Wages Employer/Employee: 1.45%/1.45%; 2.9% self employed
Obamacare:
First $200,000, ($250,000 Married) Employer/Employee: 1.45%/1.45%; 2.9% self-employed
All Remaining Wages Employer/Employee: 1.45%/2.35%; 3.8% self-employed
(Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2,000-2,003; 87-93)
Obamacare Medical Device Tax:
Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year. In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will make everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986)
Obamacare High Medical Bills Tax:
Before Obamacare, Americans facing high medical expenses were allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Obamacare now imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Therefore, Obamacare not only makes it more difficult to claim this deduction, it widens the net of taxable income. According to the IRS, 10 million families took advantage of this tax deduction in 2009, the latest year of available data. Almost all are middle class. The average taxpayer claiming this deduction earned just over $53,000 annually. ATR estimates that the average income tax increase for the average family claiming this tax benefit will be $200 – $400 per year. To learn more about this tax, click here. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995)
Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Tax:
The 30 – 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs face a new Obamacare cap of $2,500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the next ten years. (Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap.) Now, a parent looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces will find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they would have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars.
Needless to say, this tax will especially impact middle class families.
There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. Nationwide there are several million families with special needs children and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families. (Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389)”
So, while Obama claims he wants the wealthy to “pay their fair share”, he doesn’t tell you that he also expects millions of average-income Americans to do so — in order to pay for Obamacare. Unfortunately for all of us, as I wrote about earlier, Obamacare levies (many of which are still to come after 2014) still won’t pay for all of Obamacare in through 2023.
In that regard, we are certain to expect more taxes in the coming decade. Taxes are the government’s never-ending solution to raise more revenue (though we are on track to raise record revenue this year). How else are we expected to finance this brilliant, sinking ship?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, OBAMA, TAXES
In another class-warfare move, The Hill reports on the latest Obama gimmick: Obama’s budget includes a cap on IRAs and other retirement accounts.
The White House apparently has a problem with how much money might be in your retirement account(s).
The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”
The administration official then proceeds to define their level of reasonable retirement: $205,000/year, or around $3 million. Tax-deferred retirement accounts — like IRAs — will be prohibited from containing more than that.
The government is just salivating over the thought of tax-deferred money just sitting around. By capping the amount allowed in such an account, it keeps money from being deferred (hint: taxed now) so it can go directly in the government coffers. “The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code”.
So, what’s really going on?
$9 billion over a decade. That’s $900 million in revenue a year for 10 years. When that amount is checked against the more than $1 trillion in deficit per year the last several years, the suggestion that capping retirement accounts is part of a grand plan to reduce the deficit is insulting.
It’s not about deficit reduction. It’s about class warfare and need. The White House cites this measure as a way to bring more “fairness” in the tax code. Fairness? Restricting any American taxpayer how much money they can save for retirement is not fair. Pre-determining for any American taxpayer what is “needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving” is not fair.
They use the word need to get what they want. William Pitt the Younger sagely put it, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
So it’s not about deficit reduction and it’s not about any real fairness either. It is about a body politic with a rapacious appetite. First it determines your needs, and then goes after the wealthy because the wealthy have what it needs (money for more spending).
As I have written before, the question of additional taxes on the wealthy is really a liberty and equity issue, impinging on the very entrepreneurial environment that made our country great. At the heart of any monetary decisions should be free will, not free money (for the government).
In a free country such as ours, it is entirely my judgment as to whether or not I want to work hard and try to earn a lot of money (or not), and/or save my money (or not). It is unequivocally immoral that our government – or any government – should feel it has the place and authority to come along after I earned my success and basically declare that because I have done well for myself, I should have to now pay more to that government. This is legal plunder.
Why should I, who have proven myself to be successful (according to the government) have to give my success over to people who have proven to grossly mismanage our country’s finances?
This is a true and concerted effort to keep the wealthy less wealthy. It a disincentive against saving and a punishment for success. Why bother to work hard, to be self-sufficient, if the government can potentially decide, willy-nilly, that it needs more money than you?
by | OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Spring Issue of Health Matrix, the Journal of Law-Medicine out of Case Western, had a great piece on Obamacare and the legality and eligibility of certain tax credits. The abstract is below. I advise that you read the piece in its entirety. (more…)
by | BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
During the State of the Union last week, Obama issued a call to raise the minimum wage once again. He cried forth, “Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour”. What he fails to comprehend or deliberately ignores is that the impact of such a policy on small businesses — the backbone of our economy — would be devastating. Higher wages inhibits a business’s ability to grow and invest. (more…)
by | BLOG, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, TAXES
As the Senate prepares to pass the Sandy Hurricane Relief Act for $50.5 Billion, it’s worthwhile to consider this piece of legislation within the bigger picture of looming the fiscal crises. No one will deny that those citizens who were affected by this catastrophic and legendary storm deserve help. However, the bill perfectly encapsulates the dysfunction of our Congress. In merely a few short weeks, Congress has managed to figure out how to fritter away a year’s worth of revenue that was raised — after many months of wrangling and negotiations. (more…)
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, OBAMA, TAXES
Did anyone else notice Justice Antonin Scalia’s headgear at the inauguration today?
Richmond Law Professor Kevin Walsh notes on his blog that
“The twitterverse is alive with tweets about Justice Scalia’s headgear for today’s inauguration. At the risk of putting all the fun speculation to an end . . . The hat is a custom-made replica of the hat depicted in Holbein’s famous portrait of St. Thomas More. It was a gift from the St. Thomas More Society of Richmond, Virginia. We presented it to him in November 2010 as a memento of his participation in our 27th annual Red Mass and dinner”.
(more…)
by | BUSINESS, ECONOMY, TAXES
Obama wanted to let the Bush tax cuts expire for all. During his push all through election season, he tried to sweeten the deal with targeted tax breaks for small businesses. But this plan and strategy only clarified Obama’s lack of any real world business experience as well as his continuous capacity to undermine the economy. (more…)
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, TAXES
The question of additional taxes on the wealthy is really a liberty and equity issue, impinging on the very entrepreneurial environment that made our country great. At the heart of any monetary decisions should be free will, not a free lunch.
Stop and think about it for a minute. In my adult life, in a free country such as ours, it is entirely my judgment as to whether or not I want to work hard and try to earn a lot of money, and/or risk my money via investments. Such choices are made only after careful deliberation. And one of the factors going into that decision is how much tax I will pay on my winnings, my successes. That is why it is unequivocally immoral that our government – or any government – should feel it has the place and authority to come along after I earned my success and basically declare that because I have done well for myself, I should have to pay more to that government. This is legal plunder.
I have right and the liberty to factor into my decision making process what the government states I must owe under law, and decide whether that amount and calculation would be amenable to my overall situation and goals. The government has no right to retroactively come along and declare that I must detract from my commitment to invest in my self, my education, my career, or anything else because it needs a greater revenue stream. Why should I, who have proven myself to be successful (according to the government) have to give my success over to people who have proven to grossly mismanage our country’s finances?
When people say things such as Exxon makes X so many billions of dollars a year and therefore they can afford to pay more, such a statement only reflects the gross naivete and ignorance of basic financial rules. Without a frame of reference, unless that number is coupled with how much money was invested or needed to be invested in order to earn that earnings figure, such a statement is worthless rhetoric. If a company makes $10 billion, but has $100 billion invested in the company (which is quite typical for major corporations), that would be a 10% return.
When put into that perspective of how much was invested to get that ROI, 10% isn’t quite so much. Would you invest millions or billions for the risk of a 10% return or the risk of losing it all? Most would not. If you have money invested in something like a bank that is a very safe investment, but you also get a pretty low return. If you are investing in something in which you have the chance of losing, you risk everything hoping to get that 10, 15, 20% return. With any investment, be it oil or a bowling alley business, you would not have access to that kind of risk capital unless it was strongly anticipated to get that larger-than-safe-return: you risk losing it all. And yet, many companies and individuals still make the investment. Good for them.
So then with those who were able to make a decent return on investment, Obama’s tax policies are simply a death wish for our country. If we go out in the free market looking at companies and individuals investing millions and billions a year, and the government leaves alone the ones who do poorly on their investments but leeches onto the winners, the successful ones, this is what it essentially tells them: you were so successful, we want and deserve a piece of your success. We are happy, though, to allow you to lose your money alone.
Doesn’t everyone see the lunacy and disingenuousness of going after the oil companies when oil is $100 a barrel but ignoring them when oil is $20 a barrel? Or screaming about their 4% profits yet say nothing about the government’s gas tax of about 18 cents per gallon? This type of targeted hypocrisy only supplies us with 1) more political posturing and talking points and 2) attempts at additional revenue streams.
Having a policy to target the winners with an additional tax after they become winners will eventually destroy those winners because no one will want to invest or earn over a certain threshold. This will stymie and financially ruin our country, founded upon the backs of small businesses, hard work, entrepreneurship, free minds, free society, and free economy.
Those who are prosperous should be given the same liberty to manage their success as any other citizen, not additional tax penalties. How can we honestly and morally take extra money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who manage to continuously and egregiously squander income?
