# AICPA spells it out



## iota2014 (Jul 30, 2015)

From the Chair of the AICPA's Tax Executive Committee, at a forum hosted by the Taxpayer Advocate ("What Taxpayers Want or Need from the IRS to Comply with the Tax Laws” ):



> This filing season, I had a personal experience that exemplifies what taxpayers need. A client brought me a standard, computer-generated notice the IRS had sent requesting information about capital gain income. The income, which was reported to the IRS on a Form 1099-B (Proceeds from Broker and Barter Exchange Transactions), was properly reported on my client’s tax return and the appropriate amount of income tax had been paid. There was no error on the return. However, due to requirements in its matching system, the IRS needed additional information to verify the income was properly reported.
> 
> The notice was a mere case of matching the third-party information reported to the IRS, with information reported on the return. However, it took me two letters and four months to resolve this notice. It was a highly-inefficient experience and an example of where change is clearly needed.
> 
> ...


http://www.aicpa.org/Advocacy/Tax/DownloadableDocuments/aicpa-may-nta-testimony-may-2016.pdf


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

So you advocate for increasing the IRS's funding and...oh, wait, you can't vote and cannot contribute to political candidates in the U.S., right?


----------



## Nononymous (Jul 12, 2011)

BBCWatcher said:


> So you advocate for increasing the IRS's funding and...


I personally want the IRS to remain a creaky, inefficient bureaucracy running outdated, unreliable technology. This would greatly reduce the chances of them ever discovering my existence.


----------



## iota2014 (Jul 30, 2015)

Nononymous said:


> I personally want the IRS to remain a creaky, inefficient bureaucracy running outdated, unreliable technology. This would greatly reduce the chances of them ever discovering my existence.


I personally want Americans to wake up and understand what's being done to them, and how it's being done.


----------



## Bevdeforges (Nov 16, 2007)

Actually, I always felt that the somewhat "token" effort at maintaining overseas offices gave people a pretty good "hint" as to the level of interest the IRS has (or had) in pursuing "overseas taxpayers." There were only ever 4 offices, three of them in Europe. Yet Canada is supposed to have the greatest population of US citizens (and thus potential taxpayers). 

Then, even when they shut down the 4 overseas offices, they only had 12 (I think I read) employees to repatriate to assist with domestic tax matters. The pity is that the staff in the Paris office were genuinely helpful and went quite a ways toward shattering the bogeyman reputation the IRS has (at least among the expat population). 
Cheers,
Bev


----------



## iota2014 (Jul 30, 2015)

Bevdeforges said:


> Actually, I always felt that the somewhat "token" effort at maintaining overseas offices gave people a pretty good "hint" as to the level of interest the IRS has (or had) in pursuing "overseas taxpayers." There were only ever 4 offices, three of them in Europe. Yet Canada is supposed to have the greatest population of US citizens (and thus potential taxpayers).


I agree. CBT is largely unenforced and unenforceable. Non-US-resident US citizens aren't significant as potential sources of revenue - only the _claim_ is significant, as a marker of US soft power in the game of international taxation, tax-base manipulation, transfer pricing, and corporate advantage. It doesn't matter that CBT taxes on individuals can't actually be collected, in fact that would be strategically counter-productive on the diplomatic front.



> Then, even when they shut down the 4 overseas offices, they only had 12 (I think I read) employees to repatriate to assist with domestic tax matters. The pity is that the staff in the Paris office were genuinely helpful and went quite a ways toward shattering the bogeyman reputation the IRS has (at least among the expat population).


Possibly one of the reasons they were shut down. Why would America want to undo the carefully constructed image of the IRS as omniscient, omnipotent, and implacable?

It's US-resident Americans who get shafted - not (mostly) the US citizens resident in other countries.


----------



## BBCWatcher (Dec 28, 2012)

Nononymous said:


> I personally want the IRS to remain a creaky, inefficient bureaucracy running outdated, unreliable technology. This would greatly reduce the chances of them ever discovering my existence.


Right, because the efficient collection of government revenues, and the public goods and services they support, are only ever about you.

....Yes, I'm disagreeing with you on that one.


----------

