I finally found a mistake by the Master worth posting. Cecil gives some pretty bad advice in the Straight Dope Classic “What happens if you file your income tax one day late?”
Not true, unless you made a ridiculously low amount of money. More info on the IRS web site.
Where did Cecil get this info from? I know this SD Classic was written in 1996, but the rule was the same then too (only the dollar requirements for filing were even less).
As Cecil’s long time leg man, I can tell you that all the information in the column was provided by an IRS spokesman.
Cecil is correct- well, mostly. Any late filing penalty is calculated on the amount you owe. If you owe 0, then any % of 0 is still 0. If you are getting a refund, there is no penalty for late filing.
On the other hand, if the IRS has some reason to assume that you did make large amounts of money in the year you really didn’t (for example; you are self-employed and you made big bux the year before and the year after), they can and will make things rather complicated and uncomfortable for you. You’d better have some solid evidence you didn’t make big bux that year.
The Statute of Limitations is generally 3 years after you file- if you don’t file, there is no Statute. However- if you had a refund coming, you really need to file for that refund within 2 years.
It’s best to file. But Cecil was right- if you can *prove *you don’t owe or have a refund coming, then there’s not much they can do.
YMMV
And the way that you prove that is by filing a return, which Cecil admits:
However, he is incorrect in saying that it is a preference by the IRS. It is a requirement. By not filing you are breaking the rules and opening yourself up to an audit.
See Table 1-1. IRS Publication 17
Just to clarify, Cecil wasn’t talking about filing late; he was talking about not filing at all. Not okay with the IRS.
According to the IRS web site, you have three years of the return due date to still be eligible to receive a refund.
Well- sure- it’s “not OK”. But it *is *“winked at, tolerated” and there is no actual crime involved. There is a requirement, sure-but there is no penalty attached to not doing it. There are serious penalties for not filing IF you owe.
If the IRS has began “Substitute for Return” procedures (you don’t want to know) it cuts the time to 2 years to get that refund. So- consider it two years, not 3- it’s safer.
Now, sure- the IRS can 'audit" you if you don’t file. And, they might. But they might not. The IRS isn’t run by stupid people. If the W-2 and 1099 info on you doesn’t show enough income to owe, and if there is no pattern of other income from prior & subsequent years- then the chance of being audited is very small. AND- if they did audit you- and if you really truely don’t owe- then the audit would show that, and you’d leave not owing anything. Now, an audit isn’t very pleasant, but they don’t use bamboo splinters under the fingernails or the Iron Maiden, either. 
So- if you really didn’t owe- the very worst that could happen is that you’d have to spend an afternoon showing that.
The problem is- that if you do file- the burden is on the IRS to prove unreported Income. If you don’t file, the burden is on you. Thus, if you’re self-employed- ALWAYS file.
If all your income has pretty well always come from w-2’s and 1099’s, and it’s so low that you are above the filing requirements, but also always get a small refund- then you* can* “get away with” not filing. I don’t know why you’d want to. :dubious:
I’m not sure if ita a crime or not, but I’d like to see a cite saying that not filing taxes just because you don’t owe anything is “winked at, tolerated”.
The amount of money one made is not a reliable indicator of one owing or not. I made over six figures last year and I am getting money back. I know others who made much less and owe the IRS. I’m not going to argue what makes ones chances of being audited small or big. Not only do I not know what those chances are, but that has nothing to do with the issue.
That may be the case, but I doubt it. Filing a return whether you owe or not is the law and I provided a reliable cite saying so. Cecil clearly stated that if you don’t owe, you don’t have to file. I don’t understand why you are insisting that Cecil was correct.
DrDeth has adequately explained the matter.
If you say so. I think I provided adequate proof that Cecil was clearly wrong but defend him if you must.
All IRS penalties for late filing or failure to file are expressed as percentages of owed tax. Cecil specified “for practical purposes.” Thus, if you owe zero tax, your maximum penalty is zero dollars, so for practical purposes, the outcome for late filing is null. If you never file at all, you might be called upon to attend an audit to prove why you don’t owe. But an audit isn’t a penalty, and if you don’t owe, the maximum penalty they can assess ranges up to 100% of zero dollars. True, rules were broken, but if the penalty is null, what practical difference does it make?
Since there are no real consequences for failing to file if you don’t owe, and Cecil did preface his statement with “for practical purposes…” he is correct.
High praise indeed! 
NYC’s open 24/7/365 post office on 8th & 33rd has a sign that says “Any tax returned mailed before midnight April 15th will be postmarked April 15, 2005.” Every year the local news interview people standing on line at 11:45 p.m. April 15th.
Personal experience has shown that filing (mailing in a big blue box) my tax return as many as 3 days late when I owed Uncle Sam money had no adverse consequences. I should note that I try to keep my tax overpayment or liability very small, and chasing after me for a penalty on a few hundred dollars would cost more than it’s worth.
Why people play the game with the midnight postmark is beyond me. But then, the only symbolic gesture I’m familiar with involves raising a single (or sometimes two, one on each hand) finger in anger.