Slashdot Mirror


IRS to Allow Tax Preparers to Sell Your Info?

merkel writes "The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the IRS has proposed rule changes allowing tax-return preparers, like H&R Block, to sell an individual's return information to marketers and data brokers. The proposed rule [PDF], which does contain some substantive protections for the processing of electronic returns, was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2005. The official comment period has passed, but hearings will be held this month."

10 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. note to self-- by Tominva1045 · · Score: 5, Funny



    Note to self: re-read the EULA on Turbo Tax.

    --
    Cogito Ergo Sum
  2. Internet Stalking 101 by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh no, my information is going to be sold and the government is going to allow tax preparers to sell it!

    *gasp*

    Let's narrow our fears on something a little more worrisome regarding privacy and the United States Government.

    Ever filled out census information? Because, if you have, your information is available to anyone via a number of sites. That's right, for as cheap as an $8-$10 fee, people can find out what income range you are in along with a variety of other facts about you. They can also find out where you live for free!

    I would normally thank god that I have a very non-unique name but if I enter my hometown and state, there I am listed five times with my address and parent's phone number. I was just a kid when I lived there! The best part is that if you click my name, they take the liberty to plug my address into Mapquest and Google Map bars in case you don't have the time to copy and paste it in there!

    Go ahead, now try your name.

    *cups his hand to his ear listening for the sound of a million nerds enshrouding themselves in tin foil*

    I'm not worried about my personal information being sold to marketers ... you can send me all the marketing offers and SPAM you want. I am worried about someone with my same name trying to pass their credit card debt off on me. And I'm also worried about anyone I know who might have a problem with a stalker.

    Do you know what your government is doing with your census data?

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Internet Stalking 101 by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever filled out census information? Because, if you have, your information is available to anyone

      I only filled out the information they need for the constitutional purpose of the census. The rest of it is none of their damned business.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Internet Stalking 101 by Suidae · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am worried about someone with my same name trying to pass their credit card debt off on me

      This isn't really much of a problem if you keep an eye on your credit reports. If something shows up that isn't yours, force the credit reporting agency to verify the entry. They'll try to avoid doing this because its troublesome for them and they don't really care if the info is right or not (as long as is right enough across millions of people to be useful to businesses). Force them to actually verify with the reporting creditor. If they verify it, contact that creditor (Via mail) and force them to verify that the debit is yours. They'll try to get out of that too, and may send you improper verification. Keep after them and force them to send proper verification and proof that they are authorized by the original creditor to collect the debit. If the debit is not yours, at this point you win.

      Details about these processes and the laws that make them work can be found on the creditboards.com forums. In particular read about "Debit Verification" and the "The One-Two Punch". These are extremely effective techniques for getting inaccurate items off your credit record (or getting rid of reports from debit collectors who are not properly authorized to collect valid debits).

  3. It isn't their information to sell. by Aspirator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is the individual taxpayers information.

    It was not acquired by the voluntary cooperation of the source.

    If they want to sell it then they need permission from
    the owner of the information, not the IRS's.

  4. Fine by me. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I use TurboTax. I normally pay the $29 fee to electronically file it, but I can just as easily not send it to an intermediary by printing it out and mailing it in.

    It will be interesting to see how many people go back to paper filing their forms directly to the IRS. Should be a nightmare of un-automation for them.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  5. CPA by thehubbell · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Go to a CPA. CPA's can loose their license to practice as a CPA.

    CPA's ethics guidelines limit who and how a CPA share your information.

    -Peer review
    -Court order
    -and such

    It is a lot worse loose your CPA license than if a evening tax preparer to have to pick up a seasonal job. I doubt HR block would sell your info though even if they could.

  6. How evil is H&R Block? by DysenteryInTheRanks · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This just adds to the many reasons NOT to use H&R Block:
    • H&R Block successfully lobbied to severely curtail an innovative California program to assist poor people filling out their taxes (Source: This article in Mother Jones, a regular National Magazine Award-winner)

    • H&R Block charges close to 500 percent for short-term tax refund loans. These loans are predominantely used by poor people claiming the Earned Income Tax Credit. (Source: NY Times Reporter David Cay Johnston's excellent book "Perfectly Legal" and this MSNBC article about the state of California suing H&R Block.)

    • I have completed the full 1040 for four tax years, including accounting for capital losses and miscellaneous income and interest, and it's just NOT THAT HARD to do your own taxes.
  7. Agreed... by C10H14N2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Enough is enough...of calling a GS tax "fair."

    At a certain point (generally at about $100k), the vast majority people quickly stop consuming their income and start hoarding it. Oh sure, some will burn through it on booze, drugs and hookers, but most start shoving that capital back into capital. The higher that income gets, the smaller the percentage of it that is consumed. So, your "fair" tax would, dollar-for-dollar, tax someone making $100k the same as someone making $1M...and I got news for you, that "used property" exclusion? Well, they ain't makin' any new land, so guess what will happen to the price of dirt? Well, until we're vacationing on the Moon.

    Business purposes = no tax? Again, people nearing or exceeding $100k routinely put their entire damned lives on Schedule C (or into corporations) for exactly this purpose. Even if they _do_ consume above that level, it will surely be claimed as business expense--and that's determined at the point of sale or are we back to filing returns to prove it? Well, guess what, if you can avoid taxes completely by claiming business expense...you're going to find a great number of entrepreneurs and if they have to file returns, what's the benefit again in terms of paperwork and complexity reduction? If they don't, how do we prove it was business-related? Hmm.

    A "prebate?" So, everyone gets a monthly check for the taxes on the first $14k of income, assumed to be consumed? Gah... That is going to eliminate the bureaucracy precisely HOW? So, people under $14k will get prebates for whatever % of $14k or will they have to file returns to prove exactly how poor they are? That'll really free up the ol' paperwork and fraud burden, now, won't it? What if it's a family of 12 and all but one are saving every penny. Now do we file returns to prove our consumption of "necessities?" Oy vey. ...and, come on, this "hidden taxes" routine is just lame. We need 2.5T to keep the proverbial lights on in the federal government. You WILL PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW. You don't need to go through all the individual taxes to know what the government is taking. Just look at the budget. It comes to about $17k per working adult. Yeah, that's a lot of cash--and that's your "fair share." Well, actually, it's about $8333 per person, so if you have a family of four, you really should be ponying up about $33k instead of getting all those child credits while sucking up the education budget.

    The tax structure we have now is designed to induce certain behavior in many sectors. It is also designed to pay for certain _types_ of consumption, like gas taxes paying for the interstate pavement based on use. You consume pavement, you pay for the pavement. This sort of all-encompassing tax would shift the bureaucratic burden, it wouldn't eliminate it.

    Really, I think the "Fair Tax" crowd has critically examined the current problem, which is certainly well due and admirable, but I don't think they've critically examined their solution, which on even first sight is fraught with all the same problems as the existing system -- and totally ignores a number of problems that the existing system deals with quite extensively.

  8. It's already against the law to share your stuff by Watchman_ds · · Score: 5, Informative

    Once again, the media has overstated a story to attract attention to a non-issue. Regardless of what the IRS decides to do about tax preparers sharing tax information, this practice is already regulated by another law: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act(GLBA).

    GLBA was passed in 1999 to modernize aspects of the banking industry. Title V prevents financial institutions from selling consumer data without consent from the consumer. Remember a couple of years ago every bank, credit card company, loan agency, and anyone else who touched your money flooded your mailbox with Privacy Policy notices and "opt-out" statements? That was GLBA.

    The best part is that GLBA classifies tax preparers as financial institutions , so H&R Block must provide the same protections to your information that a bank would (or should).

    The proposed IRS rule change under section 1 specifically cites GLBA and points out that this rule change has no impact on the GLBA requirements.

    Sorry to all you privacy alarmists out there, but this "Privacy Bomb" for the IRS is a dud.

    --
    Sigs are for lusers. Hey! wait a second...