Today I read in the news that a women sharply questioned Vice President Al Gore at a town-hall meeting about Juanita Broaddrick’s rape accusations.
The next day she was notified that the IRS is auditing her.
This is not the first time I have heard of this being done; especially to the Clinton/Gore administration opponents.
My question is, is this truly being done to opponents, is it all a coincidence, or is it all blown out of proportion in relation to the actual number of audits that occur each year?
I’ve heard of this as well. Remember a few years ago when everyone was talking about how airbags in cars were dangerous to children and small women? Well, the two brothers that do the “Car Talk” show on National Public Radio came out very strongly that any and all airbag deaths were the government’s fault, and said that the gov’t should pay restitution to anyone hurt by airbags. They said this because the Nat’l Highway & Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) requires that airbags be able to protect unbelted occupants, which makes them unnecessarily powerful for a properly seatbelted person. That’s a debate for another thread (probably in Great Debates), but very soon after saying this the Car Talk brothers got audited by the IRS. I think within the month! They had even joked about how their comments would probably get them audited, and sure enough it happened.
I think that “revenge auditing” probably does occur because of the following factors:
The IRS can audit whomever it wants to, and you can’t really prove that you don’t deserve to be audited.
The IRS considers you guilty until proven innocent (how have they gotten away with that for so long ?), so even if you have done nothing improper, there’s a good chance that you’ll be fined.
Being audited is an extrememly inconvenient and time-consuming process.
Add up the previous three points and you get the perfect recipe for abuse.
…watch out for the LOCAL politicians too! You don’t want to run afoul of them-you just might find your local building inspector condemning your house! dON’T LAUGH-THE MAYOR OF bOSTON IN THE 1940S-50’S WAS A MAN NAMED JAMES CURLEY. HE WAS AN ABSOLUTE DICTATOR-IF YOU were so bold as to challenge him-your life would be hell-you would be harassed by city inspectors until you learned the error of your ways. The tyranny that elected officials can impose i real-trust me.
You DO NOT want to get on the bad side of the IRS-they have powers beyond the law!
I have no explanation for the ‘Car Talk’ guys getting nailed but I would suspect that the other people listed were probably audited for all the reasons ANYONE gets audited…your tax return send up lots of red flags in the computer when it gets turned in.
The people you see on TV harassing public officials in general are often people who do this as a full time job. As a full time, self-employed pain-in-the-ass who seems to always be on expensive trips in DC or wherever, one then has to question where these people actually get their incomes. Even with those that are legit lobbyists or are sponsored by a special interest group probably have a very sketchy paper trail as to how they can afford some of the things they do. Perhaps it’s through friends of their organizations, or whatever, but they usually get put up in good hotels, get catered dinners, etc. which are seemingly heavy on the ‘perq’ and light on the salary side. This obviously makes one wonder about how many of these perqs are free and how much money is being passed under the table if any…hence the audit.
Years ago, I very briefly dated a tax attorney who worked for the IRS and asked her whether she had the power to audit old boyfriends who pissed her off. She told me ‘no way’ and thankfully, our relationship ended on good terms so I never had to find out if she was lying to me…
Abuse of the IRS under the current administration is more or less an accepted fact, even grudgingly acknowledged by the press. People from special interest groups that support Clinton and Gore are not audited, those who oppose them are. If all things were fair, there should be a mix or pro and anti Clinton/Gore groups and individuals. There isn’t. Its only the anti-Clinton/Gore types who attract attention.
No, what it begs is a more careful reading of the article. She questioned Gore at a town hall in December of 1999. She accused the IRS in an article in June of 2000. She was audited in August of 2000. She gave speech the next day outside Hillary’s headquarters. The suggestion is that the first two events triggered the audit.
a more careful reading of the article includes the phrase “While the IRS is ** not ** initiating an audit, they are requiring (some support documentation)”
And, so, she questions Gore 8 months ago, and supposedly, this action in August is related? Big leap - o-faith. IMHO.
Requiring resubmission of documents is hardly rare. My agency got a tax bill this year (we’re non profit), saying we’d filed late. I had to resubmit the request for an extension. Got a letter several weeks later saying “ok, nevermind”.
And, resubmission of documents is nowhere near an audit. So, again, the OP is in question.