• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The IRS wants to know what? - Oh hell NO!

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
6,637
4,899
136
I had not heard of this until I got an email from one of the Credit Unions I am a member of. They are asking for people to contact their elected representatives and oppose this. Yea, absolutely, this is insane.

Here is the link http://www.votervoice.net/Shares/BnfBuA9bACscVAk7J1Y7FBA
Based on the address you enter, it will send the message to your representatives.

As Congress considers critical new infrastructure spending, policymakers are eying unconventional sources of revenue to fund their plans.
One proposal under consideration would require credit unions and other financial institutions to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) how much money has gone into and out of accounts holding more than $600.
This unprecedented access to consumers’ personal financial data raises several alarms.
  • This proposal would violate consumers’ personal privacy by forcing credit unions and banks to provide the government with information that does not reflect taxable activity.
  • Financial institutions—particularly those in rural and low-income communities—would face unnecessary and expensive regulatory hurdles that could make it untenable to serve those consumers already left behind by Wall Street banks.
  • The government relies on decades old data systems to store and secure IRS information. These systems have already been compromised in recent years, and the addition of this type of data only increases the likelihood of a future breach.
The Bottom Line:
Don’t jeopardize consumers’ personal financial privacy by allowing the IRS to access nontaxable deposit account information from credit unions and banks.

This is fucking crazy, and will likely trigger audits for all sorts of bullshit reasons, even though completely legitimate.

Last year I had a tree fall on the house. Repairs were covered by insurance, but it went "through" my bank account. I received 10's of thousands of dollars in the form of checks from the insurance company. Then in turn I either wrote checks or paid contractors via echecks. What is some pin head at the IRS when they only see these sums go 'through' my checking account. Sell a house, car, get life insurance payout, etc., etc. Lots of totally legitimate reasons for large sums to pass through your bank. 100% legal, and 100% NOT TAXABLE.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,240
5,783
136

bbhaag

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2011
5,833
1,185
136
What's the big deal? If you bruhs got nothing to hide why so upset? It's for the greater good after all.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
10,283
3,247
136
What's the big deal? If you bruhs got nothing to hide why so upset? It's for the greater good after all.
Hey…if that rationale was good enough for conservatives to use to pass the “Patriot Act” surveillance law under GWB, it’s plenty good enough to use now. Not that I want anyone “snooping” in my accounts either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KMFJD

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,941
1,274
126
Do banks, brokerage houses, money market funds have to report such info to the IRS? That's where the big money is, And will these regulations apply to all entities (corporations, LLCs, etc) or just natural persons? Look at what fraudsters like Donnie do-set up hundreds of LLCs, limited partnerships, etc to shuffle money back and forth. Again, that's where the big tax fraud is.

This would give the feds the ability to do the vast part of an audit on any taxpayer without notice or warrant.

The CU's letter raises some really valid concerns about the security of such data in the fed's hands, but the huge intrusion into privacy.

This proposal sounds like someone's hare-brained wish list. I'd much rather see some increased funding into the IRS to hire more investigators and go after the fraudsters. For years we have been cutting back on this, resulting in decreased tax revenue and vastly increased corruption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420
Feb 4, 2009
31,386
11,788
136
Been hearing a lot about this and also per my admittedly half hearted attempts I have yet to see any language from congress as to what the bill is and what it’s status is.
Feels like some banks pooping their pants about something that “could” happen and I suspect this is the first volley in the midterms. Democrats want all your monies!
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

eelw

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 1999
5,721
754
126
Yup spend the resources going after $600+ but ignore the $600,000+
 

Juiblex

Senior member
Sep 26, 2016
422
177
116
They have been doing this for decades already:

Juiblex, circa 2008 or so,

Juiblex's phone: *ring ring*
Juiblex: "Hello, this is Mr. Juiblex."
MN Tax Man: "Hi, this MN Tax man. We were calling to ask you why you didn't file your MN tax return for 2005. Can you explain?"
Juiblex: "What do you mean? Why would I be filing a MN tax return? I didn't live there and I lived in Colorado and have worked for a colorado company for the entire year of 2005. Why would I be filing a tax return in MN?"
MN Tax Man: "Our records indicate you have been receiving your paycheck into your bank account with a routing number located in MN, and you have credit card transactions in the state of MN. Can you explain?"
Juiblex: "I have family in MN and visited them. Of course I used my credit card to buy gas, and I opened the account in MN when I was young and have used it since."
MN Tax Man: "Ok, we'll call you back if we find anything else wrong. Bye."

My account + credit card was from Wells Fargo. So I know they are already giving the government every bit of your information. If this was at a state level, you can count on it at the federal level as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,254
3,750
136
Skip second hand info
Go straight to the source
Page 94

and politfact's take to add some color

Chuck Marr, senior director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the proposal would help identify business and partnership owners who report relatively low income to the IRS but have millions of dollars flowing through their accounts.

"It just helps the IRS get better at finding noncompliance, finding people who are cheating," he said.


An example of a non inflammatory objection
 
Last edited:

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
8,254
3,750
136
Even if this were a universally agreed upon reasonable request, Banks will fight tooth and nail against it because it means they have to spend money to comply with requirements and for smaller banks that are so frugal they won't even get the carpets cleaned or "Have a functional website" this is going to be a huge problem as the top of the corporate ladder would prefer that cash flow to their compensation and "The shareholders".
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,553
3,701
126
Yeah, I'm not gonna take banks' words on this, since most likely this is regulation that would catch a lot of shady shit (for instance, Wells Fargo employees opening accounts in customers' names and moving money through them to make it appear legit - which is something that actually happened). I seem to recall it being a center method for how some major fraud cases came about, where corporations were funneling a relatively small amount into and out of a large number of accounts to make it appear they had a lot more money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
18,226
5,436
136
I had not heard of this until I got an email from one of the Credit Unions I am a member of. They are asking for people to contact their elected representatives and oppose this. Yea, absolutely, this is insane.

Here is the link http://www.votervoice.net/Shares/BnfBuA9bACscVAk7J1Y7FBA
Based on the address you enter, it will send the message to your representatives.

As Congress considers critical new infrastructure spending, policymakers are eying unconventional sources of revenue to fund their plans.
One proposal under consideration would require credit unions and other financial institutions to report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) how much money has gone into and out of accounts holding more than $600.
This unprecedented access to consumers’ personal financial data raises several alarms.

  • This proposal would violate consumers’ personal privacy by forcing credit unions and banks to provide the government with information that does not reflect taxable activity.
  • Financial institutions—particularly those in rural and low-income communities—would face unnecessary and expensive regulatory hurdles that could make it untenable to serve those consumers already left behind by Wall Street banks.
  • The government relies on decades old data systems to store and secure IRS information. These systems have already been compromised in recent years, and the addition of this type of data only increases the likelihood of a future breach.
The Bottom Line:
Don’t jeopardize consumers’ personal financial privacy by allowing the IRS to access nontaxable deposit account information from credit unions and banks.


This is fucking crazy, and will likely trigger audits for all sorts of bullshit reasons, even though completely legitimate.

Last year I had a tree fall on the house. Repairs were covered by insurance, but it went "through" my bank account. I received 10's of thousands of dollars in the form of checks from the insurance company. Then in turn I either wrote checks or paid contractors via echecks. What is some pin head at the IRS when they only see these sums go 'through' my checking account. Sell a house, car, get life insurance payout, etc., etc. Lots of totally legitimate reasons for large sums to pass through your bank. 100% legal, and 100% NOT TAXABLE.
Save your receipts?
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
6,637
4,899
136
What's the big deal? If you bruhs got nothing to hide why so upset? It's for the greater good after all.
Because YOU will have to PROVE to the IRS when you are audited for something as common as an insurance settlement for a stolen or totaled car.

Of course, since you probably drive a 1996 piece-o-shit beater, that too won't affect you either.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
6,637
4,899
136
Save your receipts?
Yes, but why the hell should I go to the fucking hassle of an IRS audit? Ever had one? They are a fucking barrel of laughs, trust me, you should try it.

They fuck with you for the simple reason they can. During my last one the total overdue taxes, interest, and fines.... was fucking $0.00, except for the $250 bill for a CPA.

All the money I that went through my account last year due to a tree falling on the house. NONE OF THEIR FUCKING BUSINESS, and certainly nothing anyone should be harassed by the IRS to prove.

The IRS operates under 'guilty until you can prove your innocence'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaaQ

NWRMidnight

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2001
1,620
1,187
136
Because YOU will have to PROVE to the IRS when you are audited for something as common as an insurance settlement for a stolen or totaled car.

Of course, since you probably drive a 1996 piece-o-shit beater, that too won't affect you either.
They already have to report any deposits/withdrawals over $10k since 1970. People are worried about nothing. Your example above will have already matched up with the records the insurance company files with the IRS, and won't flag you for an audit. MOST all transactions will have similar record validation, unless you are depositing money that has no paper/electronic trail.
 
Last edited:

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,965
828
126
Hey…if that rationale was good enough for conservatives to use to pass the “Patriot Act” surveillance law under GWB, it’s plenty good enough to use now. Not that I want anyone “snooping” in my accounts either.
Bruh, rewarding lobbyists and voting for the Patriot Act is about the only thing both parties agree 99% on.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
26,852
661
126
Isnt socialism wonderful? Here comes the nanny state and your "allowance". Exceed your allowance? Have too much cash? Give it back to gubmit!

They know how to "spend" your money. You work for them now....and pay them too.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
6,637
4,899
136
Isnt socialism wonderful? Here comes the nanny state and your "allowance". Exceed your allowance? Have too much cash? Give it back to gubmit!

They know how to "spend" your money. You work for them now....and pay them too.
Unless you have too much money, then the government is completely hands-off. They won't even tax those with way too much money. But that is how it works for those that have the money to buy and own those that make the laws.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
I would say that crime exists only where anonymity can exist. That would suggest that the natural desire for anonymity would scale inversely with the personal security one has not to be a crime victim.

The universality of news from all parts of the world via modern media has inevitably increased the insecurity people feel impelling them to vote for greater and greater invasions of what was previously thought of as sacred privacy.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
29,142
13,225
136
Bruh, rewarding lobbyists and voting for the Patriot Act is about the only thing both parties agree 99% on.
Bruh, Democrats have been voting to get money (lobbyists) out of politics, but another thing both parties agree on is that you are a sheep. *bleat*
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
15,492
2,534
55
Even if this were a universally agreed upon reasonable request, Banks will fight tooth and nail against it because it means they have to spend money to comply with requirements and for smaller banks that are so frugal they won't even get the carpets cleaned or "Have a functional website" this is going to be a huge problem as the top of the corporate ladder would prefer that cash flow to their compensation and "The shareholders".
The other side of this is that the IRS probably won't be funded by Congress enough to deal with the data load either.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY