International Herald Tribune Editorial - More hope for the rich
International Herald Tribune Editorial - More hope for the rich
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: July 27, 2006
For the past five years, Congress has passed every tax cut championed by President George W. Bush - except one. A handful of Senate Republicans and most Senate Democrats have, to their credit, blocked four attempts since 2001 to repeal the estate tax on America's wealthiest families.
But the heirs to America's mightiest fortunes may be shielded from taxes anyway. This week, David Cay Johnston reported in The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune that the government is on the verge of eliminating the jobs of nearly half of the Internal Revenue Service lawyers who audit estate-tax returns - 157 of the agency's 345 estate-tax auditors. The IRS says the layoffs are warranted because the Bush tax cuts mean fewer people are obliged to pay estate taxes.
That's not very reassuring. Fewer of the smaller estates - those currently worth up to $2 million - are subject to the tax today than when Bush first took office. But large estates are still taxed, and with inequalities in income and wealth producing ever more billionaires and millionaires, there's ever more gold in those hills for auditors to mine.
The IRS also says that it's confident it is catching estate-tax cheats because a mere 10 percent of estate audits brought in 80 percent of the additional taxes. The logic is that auditing a greater percentage would yield diminishing results.
Maybe. But six years ago, the IRS said that most of the taxable gifts it audited had shortchanged the government, and it pledged to hire more lawyers to audit big gifts.
The underlying fact of the matter is that the IRS hasn't released the data that would allow the public to verify whether cutting back on estate-tax audits represents sound tax enforcement. A research organization at Syracuse University, called TRAC, used to routinely request and receive comprehensive IRS audit figures - by size of the estate, the number of hours spent and the amount of extra recommended tax.
Researchers analyzed the data and posted it on the organization's Web site, so the public had a continuing sense of the IRS' fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. But in 2004, the IRS stopped giving TRAC the data. In 2006, a federal court ordered the agency to provide the requested records. But the information released since then has not been comprehensive. If the IRS wants to avoid suspicion that its actions are politically motivated, it should release all the data that researchers need to evaluate its actions.
For the past five years, Congress has passed every tax cut championed by President George W. Bush - except one. A handful of Senate Republicans and most Senate Democrats have, to their credit, blocked four attempts since 2001 to repeal the estate tax on America's wealthiest families.
But the heirs to America's mightiest fortunes may be shielded from taxes anyway. This week, David Cay Johnston reported in The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune that the government is on the verge of eliminating the jobs of nearly half of the Internal Revenue Service lawyers who audit estate-tax returns - 157 of the agency's 345 estate-tax auditors. The IRS says the layoffs are warranted because the Bush tax cuts mean fewer people are obliged to pay estate taxes.
That's not very reassuring. Fewer of the smaller estates - those currently worth up to $2 million - are subject to the tax today than when Bush first took office. But large estates are still taxed, and with inequalities in income and wealth producing ever more billionaires and millionaires, there's ever more gold in those hills for auditors to mine.
The IRS also says that it's confident it is catching estate-tax cheats because a mere 10 percent of estate audits brought in 80 percent of the additional taxes. The logic is that auditing a greater percentage would yield diminishing results.
Maybe. But six years ago, the IRS said that most of the taxable gifts it audited had shortchanged the government, and it pledged to hire more lawyers to audit big gifts.
The underlying fact of the matter is that the IRS hasn't released the data that would allow the public to verify whether cutting back on estate-tax audits represents sound tax enforcement. A research organization at Syracuse University, called TRAC, used to routinely request and receive comprehensive IRS audit figures - by size of the estate, the number of hours spent and the amount of extra recommended tax.
Researchers analyzed the data and posted it on the organization's Web site, so the public had a continuing sense of the IRS' fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. But in 2004, the IRS stopped giving TRAC the data. In 2006, a federal court ordered the agency to provide the requested records. But the information released since then has not been comprehensive. If the IRS wants to avoid suspicion that its actions are politically motivated, it should release all the data that researchers need to evaluate its actions.
For the past five years, Congress has passed every tax cut championed by President George W. Bush - except one. A handful of Senate Republicans and most Senate Democrats have, to their credit, blocked four attempts since 2001 to repeal the estate tax on America's wealthiest families.
But the heirs to America's mightiest fortunes may be shielded from taxes anyway. This week, David Cay Johnston reported in The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune that the government is on the verge of eliminating the jobs of nearly half of the Internal Revenue Service lawyers who audit estate-tax returns - 157 of the agency's 345 estate-tax auditors. The IRS says the layoffs are warranted because the Bush tax cuts mean fewer people are obliged to pay estate taxes.
That's not very reassuring. Fewer of the smaller estates - those currently worth up to $2 million - are subject to the tax today than when Bush first took office. But large estates are still taxed, and with inequalities in income and wealth producing ever more billionaires and millionaires, there's ever more gold in those hills for auditors to mine.
The IRS also says that it's confident it is catching estate-tax cheats because a mere 10 percent of estate audits brought in 80 percent of the additional taxes. The logic is that auditing a greater percentage would yield diminishing results.
Maybe. But six years ago, the IRS said that most of the taxable gifts it audited had shortchanged the government, and it pledged to hire more lawyers to audit big gifts.
The underlying fact of the matter is that the IRS hasn't released the data that would allow the public to verify whether cutting back on estate-tax audits represents sound tax enforcement. A research organization at Syracuse University, called TRAC, used to routinely request and receive comprehensive IRS audit figures - by size of the estate, the number of hours spent and the amount of extra recommended tax.
Researchers analyzed the data and posted it on the organization's Web site, so the public had a continuing sense of the IRS' fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. But in 2004, the IRS stopped giving TRAC the data. In 2006, a federal court ordered the agency to provide the requested records. But the information released since then has not been comprehensive. If the IRS wants to avoid suspicion that its actions are politically motivated, it should release all the data that researchers need to evaluate its actions.
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: July 27, 2006
For the past five years, Congress has passed every tax cut championed by President George W. Bush - except one. A handful of Senate Republicans and most Senate Democrats have, to their credit, blocked four attempts since 2001 to repeal the estate tax on America's wealthiest families.
But the heirs to America's mightiest fortunes may be shielded from taxes anyway. This week, David Cay Johnston reported in The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune that the government is on the verge of eliminating the jobs of nearly half of the Internal Revenue Service lawyers who audit estate-tax returns - 157 of the agency's 345 estate-tax auditors. The IRS says the layoffs are warranted because the Bush tax cuts mean fewer people are obliged to pay estate taxes.
That's not very reassuring. Fewer of the smaller estates - those currently worth up to $2 million - are subject to the tax today than when Bush first took office. But large estates are still taxed, and with inequalities in income and wealth producing ever more billionaires and millionaires, there's ever more gold in those hills for auditors to mine.
The IRS also says that it's confident it is catching estate-tax cheats because a mere 10 percent of estate audits brought in 80 percent of the additional taxes. The logic is that auditing a greater percentage would yield diminishing results.
Maybe. But six years ago, the IRS said that most of the taxable gifts it audited had shortchanged the government, and it pledged to hire more lawyers to audit big gifts.
The underlying fact of the matter is that the IRS hasn't released the data that would allow the public to verify whether cutting back on estate-tax audits represents sound tax enforcement. A research organization at Syracuse University, called TRAC, used to routinely request and receive comprehensive IRS audit figures - by size of the estate, the number of hours spent and the amount of extra recommended tax.
Researchers analyzed the data and posted it on the organization's Web site, so the public had a continuing sense of the IRS' fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. But in 2004, the IRS stopped giving TRAC the data. In 2006, a federal court ordered the agency to provide the requested records. But the information released since then has not been comprehensive. If the IRS wants to avoid suspicion that its actions are politically motivated, it should release all the data that researchers need to evaluate its actions.
For the past five years, Congress has passed every tax cut championed by President George W. Bush - except one. A handful of Senate Republicans and most Senate Democrats have, to their credit, blocked four attempts since 2001 to repeal the estate tax on America's wealthiest families.
But the heirs to America's mightiest fortunes may be shielded from taxes anyway. This week, David Cay Johnston reported in The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune that the government is on the verge of eliminating the jobs of nearly half of the Internal Revenue Service lawyers who audit estate-tax returns - 157 of the agency's 345 estate-tax auditors. The IRS says the layoffs are warranted because the Bush tax cuts mean fewer people are obliged to pay estate taxes.
That's not very reassuring. Fewer of the smaller estates - those currently worth up to $2 million - are subject to the tax today than when Bush first took office. But large estates are still taxed, and with inequalities in income and wealth producing ever more billionaires and millionaires, there's ever more gold in those hills for auditors to mine.
The IRS also says that it's confident it is catching estate-tax cheats because a mere 10 percent of estate audits brought in 80 percent of the additional taxes. The logic is that auditing a greater percentage would yield diminishing results.
Maybe. But six years ago, the IRS said that most of the taxable gifts it audited had shortchanged the government, and it pledged to hire more lawyers to audit big gifts.
The underlying fact of the matter is that the IRS hasn't released the data that would allow the public to verify whether cutting back on estate-tax audits represents sound tax enforcement. A research organization at Syracuse University, called TRAC, used to routinely request and receive comprehensive IRS audit figures - by size of the estate, the number of hours spent and the amount of extra recommended tax.
Researchers analyzed the data and posted it on the organization's Web site, so the public had a continuing sense of the IRS' fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. But in 2004, the IRS stopped giving TRAC the data. In 2006, a federal court ordered the agency to provide the requested records. But the information released since then has not been comprehensive. If the IRS wants to avoid suspicion that its actions are politically motivated, it should release all the data that researchers need to evaluate its actions.
For the past five years, Congress has passed every tax cut championed by President George W. Bush - except one. A handful of Senate Republicans and most Senate Democrats have, to their credit, blocked four attempts since 2001 to repeal the estate tax on America's wealthiest families.
But the heirs to America's mightiest fortunes may be shielded from taxes anyway. This week, David Cay Johnston reported in The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune that the government is on the verge of eliminating the jobs of nearly half of the Internal Revenue Service lawyers who audit estate-tax returns - 157 of the agency's 345 estate-tax auditors. The IRS says the layoffs are warranted because the Bush tax cuts mean fewer people are obliged to pay estate taxes.
That's not very reassuring. Fewer of the smaller estates - those currently worth up to $2 million - are subject to the tax today than when Bush first took office. But large estates are still taxed, and with inequalities in income and wealth producing ever more billionaires and millionaires, there's ever more gold in those hills for auditors to mine.
The IRS also says that it's confident it is catching estate-tax cheats because a mere 10 percent of estate audits brought in 80 percent of the additional taxes. The logic is that auditing a greater percentage would yield diminishing results.
Maybe. But six years ago, the IRS said that most of the taxable gifts it audited had shortchanged the government, and it pledged to hire more lawyers to audit big gifts.
The underlying fact of the matter is that the IRS hasn't released the data that would allow the public to verify whether cutting back on estate-tax audits represents sound tax enforcement. A research organization at Syracuse University, called TRAC, used to routinely request and receive comprehensive IRS audit figures - by size of the estate, the number of hours spent and the amount of extra recommended tax.
Researchers analyzed the data and posted it on the organization's Web site, so the public had a continuing sense of the IRS' fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. But in 2004, the IRS stopped giving TRAC the data. In 2006, a federal court ordered the agency to provide the requested records. But the information released since then has not been comprehensive. If the IRS wants to avoid suspicion that its actions are politically motivated, it should release all the data that researchers need to evaluate its actions.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home