The IRS is now collecting back taxes by private debt collectors

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
This is so wrong on so many levels i dont know where to start. :|

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/business/20tax.html

I.R.S. Enlists Help in Collecting Delinquent Taxes
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save

By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: August 20, 2006
If you owe back taxes to the federal government, the next call asking you to pay may come not from an Internal Revenue Service officer, but from a private debt collector.

Within two weeks, the I.R.S. will turn over data on 12,500 taxpayers ? each of whom owes $25,000 or less in back taxes ? to three collection agencies. Larger debtors will continue to be pursued by I.R.S. officers.

The move, an initiative of the Bush administration, represents the first step in a broader plan to outsource the collection of smaller tax debts to private companies over time. Although I.R.S. officials acknowledge that this will be much more expensive than doing it internally, they say that Congress has forced their hand by refusing to let them hire more revenue officers, who could pull in a lot of easy-to-collect money.

The private debt collection program is expected to bring in $1.4 billion over 10 years, with the collection agencies keeping about $330 million of that, or 22 to 24 cents on the dollar.

By hiring more revenue officers, the I.R.S. could collect more than $9 billion each year and spend only $296 million ? or about three cents on the dollar ? to do so, Charles O. Rossotti, the computer systems entrepreneur who was commissioner from 1997 to 2002, told Congress four years ago.

I.R.S. officials on Friday characterized those figures as correct, but said that the plan Mr. Rossotti had proposed had been forestalled by Congress, which declined to authorize it to hire more revenue officers.

Critics of the privatization plan point not only to the higher cost but also to what they say is a greater potential for abuse. With private companies in the mix, they say, debtors could more easily be tricked into paying money to scam artists using spoof Web sites or other schemes, a problem the I.R.S. alerted taxpayers to in April. Brady R. Bennett, collections director for the I.R.S., said that by 2008, about 350,000 past-due tax records will be distributed among about 10 private debt-collection agencies. To guard against fraud, he said, the agencies will contact taxpayers only by telephone or mail ? not the Internet ? and will instruct them to send all payments directly to the United States Treasury, not the private collection agency.

One of the three companies selected by the I.R.S. is a law firm in Austin, Tex., where a former partner, Juan Peña, admitted in 2002 that he paid bribes to win a collection contract from the city of San Antonio. He went to jail for the crime.

Last month the same law firm, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, was again in the news. One of its competitors, Municipal Services Bureau, also of Austin, sued Brownsville, Tex., charging that the city improperly gave the Linebarger firm a collections contract that it suggested was influenced by campaign contributions to two city commissioners.

Joe Householder, a spokesman for Linebarger, which specializes in delinquent tax collections, said it had resolved the issues raised by the Peña case in 2002 and that it believed it had acted properly in Brownsville. The mayor of Brownsville, Eddie Treviño Jr., said that the contract vote had been unanimous and scoffed at the accusations of misconduct.

The two other companies that have won debt collection contracts from the I.R.S. are Pioneer Credit Recovery of Arcade, N.Y., a division of the SLM Corporation, and the CBE Group of Waterloo, Iowa.

The main objection so far to the privatization program is that it is more expensive than internal collection. ?I freely admit it,? Mark W. Everson, the tax commissioner, told a House of Representatives committee in March.

Privatizing government services is often promoted as a way to cut costs. But the government would probably net $1.1 billion from private debt collectors over 10 years, compared with the $87 billion that could be reaped if the agency hired more revenue officers, as Mr. Rossotti had recommended.

Taxpayer rights are at risk with privatization, Nina B. Olson, the I.R.S. taxpayer advocate, warned Congress earlier this year. ?Because private collectors will operate under rules of profit maximization rather than the I.R.S.?s customer-service based policy,? she warned, the private collectors may have less incentive to safeguard taxpayer rights.

Al Cleland, a retired I.R.S. tax collector in Minnesota, predicted that using private collectors would cause some debtors to owe more.

?We always told people to get current on their taxes first, so they would not have more penalties added, and then work on paying off their back taxes,? Mr. Cleland said. ?A private collection agency has no incentive to tell taxpayers that, so people will pay more penalties.?

Mr. Bennett of the I.R.S. said that such advice was correct, but that it applied primarily to small business owners, whose cases will not be sent to the private agencies.

Under federal budget rules, money spent to hire tax collectors is treated as a discretionary expense, and Congress is cutting discretionary spending. In business terms, the rules treat the I.R.S. as a cost center, not as the government?s profit center.

The private debt-collection program, however, is outside the budget rules because, except for the start-up costs, the collectors are to be paid from the proceeds.
 

jlbenedict

Banned
Jul 10, 2005
3,724
0
0
I wonder which 3 collection agencies are going to get the job. I'm sure they are salivating over this.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?


- Putting private data out there
- High potential for fraud


Yet another reason to support the FairTax.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

well first off it will cost more tax payers money to have private debt collectors getting the back taxes instead of IRS agents.

second, taxes are between the governemet and its citizens. if the government wasts the tax money then the government should be the one going after it. not hiring a private thug to go get it. also all your personal information has just now become dirty laundry to air out to the world.
 

ailetlvo

Member
Jul 24, 2005
174
0
0
It looks bad for the govt I guess, because they could save 34 million in costs and raise almost 89 billion more by hiring more revenue officers, but as far as the people go, I mean they are still going to be getting calls regarding their back taxes, so what is the difference between the govt doing it and privatization?

Edit: Just read the above two posters. I stand corrected. Props.
 

SpanishFry

Platinum Member
Nov 3, 2001
2,965
0
0
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

"But the government would probably net $1.1 billion from private debt collectors over 10 years, compared with the $87 billion that could be reaped if the agency hired more revenue officers"



BAM!
 

Sid59

Lifer
Sep 2, 2002
11,879
3
81
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

not sure. but i'm betting someone in congress or higher has a nice stake in a collection agency. of course, this is all theory backed by nothing, except from past history .. lol.

i only say this because the article states that it's cheaper for the IRS to hire from officers to collect than it is to outsource. Hiring IRS officers cost 3 per dollar they collect in taxe, as opposed to paying 24 cents to the collectors.

excerpt from the article, footnotes:

"Privatizing government services is often promoted as a way to cut costs. But the government would probably net $1.1 billion from private debt collectors over 10 years, compared with the $87 billion that could be reaped if the agency hired more revenue officers, as Mr. Rossotti had recommended. "
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

well first off it will cost more tax payers money to have private debt collectors getting the back taxes instead of IRS agents.

second, taxes are between the governemet and its citizens. if the government wasts the tax money then the government should be the one going after it. not hiring a private thug to go get it. also all your personal information has just now become dirty laundry to air out to the world.

One could argue that since the government has no "public thug" as you so eloquently put it that it would have been an eventual necessity to employ private "thugs" to go after people who are already commiting a Federal offense.

By "your personal information" you mean "the personal information of the delinquents who are actively committing a Federal offense." Would you also argue that a person who commits a Federal offense should get away with it because the government has no adequate means of enforcement?
 

jlbenedict

Banned
Jul 10, 2005
3,724
0
0
Originally posted by: Sid59
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

not sure. but i'm betting someone in congress or higher has a nice stake in a collection agency. of course, this is all theory backed by nothing, except from past history .. lol.

i only say this because the article states that it's cheaper for the IRS to hire from officers to collect than it is to outsource. Hiring IRS officers cost 3 per dollar they collect in taxe, as opposed to paying 24 cents to the collectors.

excerpt from the article, footnotes:

"Privatizing government services is often promoted as a way to cut costs. But the government would probably net $1.1 billion from private debt collectors over 10 years, compared with the $87 billion that could be reaped if the agency hired more revenue officers, as Mr. Rossotti had recommended. "


So, you think there is a loophole?

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

well first off it will cost more tax payers money to have private debt collectors getting the back taxes instead of IRS agents.

second, taxes are between the governemet and its citizens. if the government wasts the tax money then the government should be the one going after it. not hiring a private thug to go get it. also all your personal information has just now become dirty laundry to air out to the world.

One could argue that since the government has no "public thug" as you so eloquently put it that it would have been an eventual necessity to employ private "thugs" to go after people who are already commiting a Federal offense.

By "your personal information" you mean "the personal information of the delinquents who are actively committing a Federal offense." Would you also argue that a person who commits a Federal offense should get away with it because the government has no adequate means of enforcement?

How about just making those that didn't get away with it, ie....tobacco companies, oil companies, etc., actually pay their fines? You would generate exponential amounts to what you could get going after those that have <$25k in taxes due.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

well first off it will cost more tax payers money to have private debt collectors getting the back taxes instead of IRS agents.

second, taxes are between the governemet and its citizens. if the government wasts the tax money then the government should be the one going after it. not hiring a private thug to go get it. also all your personal information has just now become dirty laundry to air out to the world.

One could argue that since the government has no "public thug" as you so eloquently put it that it would have been an eventual necessity to employ private "thugs" to go after people who are already commiting a Federal offense.

By "your personal information" you mean "the personal information of the delinquents who are actively committing a Federal offense." Would you also argue that a person who commits a Federal offense should get away with it because the government has no adequate means of enforcement?

ok lets put it this way. how would you feel if the city you lived in cut back on its patrol officers and hired security guards to enforce the law.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Citrix
second, taxes are between the governemet and its citizens. if the government wasts the tax money then the government should be the one going after it. not hiring a private thug to go get it. also all your personal information has just now become dirty laundry to air out to the world.

Eh... if you don't want them to give your contact info to a collections agency, all you have to do is pay our taxes. Same as any other debt really. At most the government should have to make an effort to notify you that a collection agency will be used before they do it, then you have no room to complain.

But if they can (supposedly) get a lot more money by hiring more revenue officers, by all means do that. I have no love for collection agencies.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Citrix

ok lets put it this way. how would you feel if the city you lived in cut back on its patrol officers and hired security guards to enforce the law.

If they are trained just as well and held to the same standards, I don't see the difference.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Citrix

ok lets put it this way. how would you feel if the city you lived in cut back on its patrol officers and hired security guards to enforce the law.

If they are trained just as well and held to the same standards, I don't see the difference.

:disgust: so you have no problems with some HS drop out security guard performing law enforcement duties?
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,890
3,852
136
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

well first off it will cost more tax payers money to have private debt collectors getting the back taxes instead of IRS agents.

second, taxes are between the governemet and its citizens. if the government wasts the tax money then the government should be the one going after it. not hiring a private thug to go get it. also all your personal information has just now become dirty laundry to air out to the world.

One could argue that since the government has no "public thug" as you so eloquently put it that it would have been an eventual necessity to employ private "thugs" to go after people who are already commiting a Federal offense.

By "your personal information" you mean "the personal information of the delinquents who are actively committing a Federal offense." Would you also argue that a person who commits a Federal offense should get away with it because the government has no adequate means of enforcement?

1. The gov't does have adequate means of enforcement.
2. While this is going on, the gov't is simultaneously slashing audits of people who pay estate tax. Seems like they're a little selective on which federal offenses they choose to enforce.
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

well first off it will cost more tax payers money to have private debt collectors getting the back taxes instead of IRS agents.

second, taxes are between the governemet and its citizens. if the government wasts the tax money then the government should be the one going after it. not hiring a private thug to go get it. also all your personal information has just now become dirty laundry to air out to the world.

One could argue that since the government has no "public thug" as you so eloquently put it that it would have been an eventual necessity to employ private "thugs" to go after people who are already commiting a Federal offense.

By "your personal information" you mean "the personal information of the delinquents who are actively committing a Federal offense." Would you also argue that a person who commits a Federal offense should get away with it because the government has no adequate means of enforcement?

1. The gov't does have adequate means of enforcement.
Then why are they hiring private firms ?

 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Citrix

ok lets put it this way. how would you feel if the city you lived in cut back on its patrol officers and hired security guards to enforce the law.

Not quite... you forgot "and paid the private firm that hired the security guards more money than it would have cost you to hire more police officers."
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,890
3,852
136
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: chambersc
and why is this bad OP?

well first off it will cost more tax payers money to have private debt collectors getting the back taxes instead of IRS agents.

second, taxes are between the governemet and its citizens. if the government wasts the tax money then the government should be the one going after it. not hiring a private thug to go get it. also all your personal information has just now become dirty laundry to air out to the world.

One could argue that since the government has no "public thug" as you so eloquently put it that it would have been an eventual necessity to employ private "thugs" to go after people who are already commiting a Federal offense.

By "your personal information" you mean "the personal information of the delinquents who are actively committing a Federal offense." Would you also argue that a person who commits a Federal offense should get away with it because the government has no adequate means of enforcement?

1. The gov't does have adequate means of enforcement.
Then why are they hiring private firms ?

If you read the article, it's some bs about discretionary vs some other kind of spending. It's all a bunch of accounting crap that basically comes down to the government is going to be losing a ton of money for no good reason. What else is new.
 
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
dude if you think thats wrong

come live over here where we have the marvellous inheritence tax

thats right, when you die and leave possessions such as houses etc in your will to other member of your family, the government steps in and takes a magnificent slice! its brilliant, they tax you on everything you earn (which if you earn more than £33,000 is a 40% tax .... earn £100k? pay the government £40K before u even get your money!) then you pay National Insurance on top of that.

then they take 17.5% on everything you buy, up to 80% of the price of petrol is tax, then theres car tax and despite car tax theres still roads you have to pay to drive on. despite paying 40% tax + NI the NHS still cant look after you and give you the medical attention u need.

then theres more tax on alcohol

i think my mother siad that when she and my dad pass away, and leave the house to me n my brother..... we'll end up having to pay the government about 40% the value of our parents possessions. the house alone is worth over £400,000.

its ****** criminal, and i hate this country.

 

herkulease

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2001
3,923
0
0
how much do revenue officers get paid? IRS doesn't seem to list what the base grade for the job.

 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
dude if you think thats wrong

come live over here where we have the marvellous inheritence tax

thats right, when you die and leave possessions such as houses etc in your will to other member of your family, the government steps in and takes a magnificent slice! its brilliant, they tax you on everything you earn (which if you earn more than £33,000 is a 40% tax .... earn £100k? pay the government £40K before u even get your money!) then you pay National Insurance on top of that.

then they take 17.5% on everything you buy, up to 80% of the price of petrol is tax, then theres car tax and despite car tax theres still roads you have to pay to drive on. despite paying 40% tax + NI the NHS still cant look after you and give you the medical attention u need.

then theres more tax on alcohol

i think my mother siad that when she and my dad pass away, and leave the house to me n my brother..... we'll end up having to pay the government about 40% the value of our parents possessions. the house alone is worth over £400,000.

its ****** criminal, and i hate this country.

We have inheritance tax here, but it only applies to the extremely wealthy. We also have the gift tax which also only applies to the extremely wealthy to prevent them from getting around the inheritance tax.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: Citrix

ok lets put it this way. how would you feel if the city you lived in cut back on its patrol officers and hired security guards to enforce the law.

If they are trained just as well and held to the same standards, I don't see the difference.

:disgust: so you have no problems with some HS drop out security guard performing law enforcement duties?

If they are trained just as well and held to the same standards is what I said. Most LEOs have college degrees, so yeah I think I would have a problem if they were replaced by high school drop-outs.

Your analogy failed, because you're assuming that private entities are less qualified to do a job than a government entity. Usually that is not the case. Don't we have private entities running prisons? Or at very least providing most of the services that prisons use (like food). I think a debt collection agency is probably qualified in the area of collecting debts.
 

marvdmartian

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2002
5,442
27
91
Yeah.....just wait until they contract with the mafia to collect. You owe the IRS money, next thing you know, Vinnie and Guido come knocking on your door with a baseball bat and a set of brass knuckles!! :shocked: