Slashdot Mirror


IRS Pushes for New Reporting at Expense of Privacy

angelheaded writes "Brian Krebs from the Washington Post is reporting that the Bush administration is proposing a new tax collection program that would force credit card companies to report merchants' income to the Internal Revenue Service. The plan has come under fire from privacy groups, who say it will create another private sector database tied to Social Security numbers at a time when ID theft experts are urging companies to wean themselves from the use and collection of such information."

29 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Surprise? by mh1997 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IRS Pushes for New Reporting at Expense of Privacy


    They have always invaded privacy to collect money. Why is this news?
    1. Re:Surprise? by daseinw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surprised? No.

      Why is it news? Because that's our only hope of changing the behavior for the better.

      I get where you're coming from but I have to admit, I'm really discouraged every time we hear one of these stories and the first thing you hear is a chorus of sarcastic, "what a shock!" responses.

      This is news because this is something that should upset us enough to actually provoke us into ACTION. Writing our senator. Going to a senator's office. Threatening to withhold our significant or not-so-significant campaign contribution from their next election. Anything...

      But every time we resign ourselves to reply to outrageous behavior with sarcasm or disinterest, we speed up the day when we'll have nothing to be upset about... because we'll have no say in the matter and our kids will have been lulled into not caring from a young age.

    2. Re:Surprise? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, I don't see how this is any different then requiring an employer to submit a 1099 for contract workers and other similar paid people. I mean the changes are so it reports the total amount of sales (income) a merchant or business owner has made through a credit card account. It would almost be the same as the card companies issuing a 1099 to the merchants.

      The call to arms about social security numbers is a little weak too. I mean it isn't like the US government (IRS) doesn't already have the numbers when anyone else does a 1099 or they report their own income. All that would be necessary is for another field in an existing database to be set with a "credit income" tab or something and treat it like all other IRS information.

      The people who are really at risk here are the ones who sell things on line and don't report it to anyone. That is why there is a big problem with it. Now, If your going to be doing any business with people paying you by credit cards, your going to have to report it in some way. The fact that small businesses use their SS number as their TIN number is sort of irrelevant, the IRS would already have that information anyways. The credit card companies would already have that information stored for a year or more anyways too. The only difference now is whether the government gets information on the amount of sales you do by credit cards or not. That is the only material change in this.

    3. Re:Surprise? by mpe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, I don't see how this is any different then requiring an employer to submit a 1099 for contract workers and other similar paid people. I mean the changes are so it reports the total amount of sales (income) a merchant or business owner has made through a credit card account. It would almost be the same as the card companies issuing a 1099 to the merchants.

      The real SSN problem is their use for completly unrelated purposes. Including as proof of identity.
      Using them as an authenticator rather than an identifier is where the problem is. It's an interesting question what, if anything, can be used as an authenticator between two parties. But having one (and typically only one) of the parties produce a list of identifiers can't do this.

  2. Worthless data... by SoCalChris · · Score: 3, Informative

    How would they figure the tax from the merchant's credit card revenue? They could have very high revenue, but low profits, or vice versa. You wouldn't be able to tell only from their CC processor history.

    1. Re:Worthless data... by SoCalChris · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to mention that it does nothing with non-CC transactions, making this even more worthless.

      Small businesses that are cheating on their taxes will still cheat on their taxes, this does nothing to help that. It only adds another layer of government involvement, and another chance for data to be lost/stolen/misused.

    2. Re:Worthless data... by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Small business owners file 1040 Schedule C. Pari I, line 1 is "Gross receipts or sales."

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:Worthless data... by mckinnsb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Regardless of what they say publicly, my guess is that they are probably seeking the information not just to keep tabs on the merchants, but to keep a better lock on consumers. A lot of consumer capital goes through small business owners, that might be the people you buy groceries, liquor, cigarettes, sandwiches, meals, etc from. You do have to report how much money you earn every year, but you *don't* have to report what you spend it on (unless you write it off or it meets other specific criteria). I'll get to why that is important, later.

      They can retrieve this information because from what I have gathered, they are proposing to withhold the actual receipts of sale, and the receipts would contain information regarding the two parties involved in the transaction -when, where, how much, and possibly why.

      Granted, they are only proposing to hold 28% of these receipts, so this would by no means be a comprehensive or continuous record of consumer activity, but it could be used in a red-flag "Monte-carlo" algorithm-type approach - pick a few of the receipts, try to look for a few fishy ones by passing them through a filter, and then investigate (audit) any receipts that match that criteria.

      For example, certain things don't need to be reported to the government when sold to an independent merchant (or even a larger business). If the seller makes a profit on the sale (assuming the seller doesn't own a small business or the sale is not related to his business), that profit is essentially invisible to the government. While in some cases this profit is taxable or not taxable (depending on what you sell) this law would make those profits visible, and would make the taxable things visible and thus enforceable. It would give an argument in Congress for those currently nontaxable profits to become taxable through an "ease of enforcement" arguement.

      That being said, I don't really think the government needs to tax more than it already can and does, unless I start to see some dramatic increase in what I get out of my government, and honestly, we have other things we could be spending our money on. I'm really not worried about a business owner taking a few friends out to dinner and writing it off on his business card as an expesnse - I'm more worried about millions of dollars lost in other places.

    4. Re:Worthless data... by rosaliepizza · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is not worthless data to agents who have statistical models of every small business imaginable including love offerings made to preachers to every mom and pop storefront ongoing. It is a simple thing for them with this information to flag out of ordinary transaction totals relating to sales and gross income reporting which they compare to other numbers provided on your 1040. If your credit card sales are extremely high compared to gross sales vs other busisnesses in demographic area you are a match for more scrutiny.

    5. Re:Worthless data... by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

      By "withhold 28% of receipts", they mean that the credit card company would withhold 28% of the payments they would otherwise pay to the merchant (and presumably send that directly to Uncle Sam), if the merchant didn't provide a TIN. They don't mean the IRS would get the actual transaction records on a routine basis.

  3. I wanna know why we need more government. by g0bshiTe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously do we really need the extra tax dollars spent, man hours, and all that goes with it so the government can get more money?

    I'll tell you if it doesn't pass, you will see it sooner or later under the guise of "searching for terrorist finances".

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    1. Re:I wanna know why we need more government. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you expect the government to be responcible with the money they already have. Layoff thousands of useless unioned employee workers. Determinin the value where each dollar is going and determining if it is worth funding or not...

      That is not how the government work, people will CRY oh why cant the government do this. Then they goverment will do this... Then a bit later they complain that the government didn't do it the way they wanted. in D&D terms the US Government is a lot like a wish spell with a tricky DM. You get your wish but it has a consequence that you didn't forsee.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:I wanna know why we need more government. by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Huh.. I remember R's always being tax hunger, unless you're talking about Big Business. R's were never the friends of ALL business, only big business.

  4. What's the big deal? by surmak · · Score: 5, Informative
    According to the article, the IRS is only asking the banks to report the IDs of those receiving money from credit card transactions. Your purchases are not reported, only the aggregate of all the purchases of a business. This information will help to locate tax cheats. I would have a serious problem if the IRS got a list of where every consumer made a CC transaction, but that is not the case here.


    The privacy issue is not a concern either. Even if it is a small business using the owner's SSN the IRS already has that info on tax forms, W2s, and other data they get from banks. This personal information will not be shared with anyone outside the IRS anymore than one's 1040 is.

  5. There are a few problems I can see by gdog05 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's been quite obvious in the last few years especially, that transactions on a credit card don't reflect "real" monetary transactions. How many people spend way more than they can afford, and pay back little for long periods of time. Also, it seems bad policy for a gov't to know how and where you spend money. There is no reason they should have record of that. Imagine the legal power of having records of the spending of a Senator for example. Imagine the blackmail power that would give the IRS.

  6. WTF? I already report my income from credit cards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I already report and pay sales tax from my income from credit card transactions.

    And what the hell does the IRS care about my local city, county or state sales tax? Oh they want to make sure that I, as a small business owner, am reporting my income correctly? Fuck Off, I already do, audit me if you want you lazy fuckers, but stay the fuck out of my records unless you are doing an audit.

    They can't possibly figure out my take-home income from credit card transactions anyway. They don't know if my expenses are 10% or 90% of those transactions, nor do they know how much of my business is cash or check.

    Small businesses that want to hide income already know how to do this, they are cash only businesses. Allowing credit card transactions and avoiding paying taxes on that income is just asking for trouble. Well avoiding paying taxes in anyway is asking for trouble.

    Let me and my accountant do our work and don't change a thing.

    I can only see this leading to problems.

  7. Makes my head hurt by pauljuno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Bush Administration is pushing for bigger government, great ... just great. He's a Republican too? I'm so confused.

    1. Re:Makes my head hurt by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why be confused? All politicians like bigger more complex government.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Makes my head hurt by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Republicans are about spreading the word of God

      You mean like "the love of money is the root of all evil"? Or "Judge not, lest you be judged yourself?" Or "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's [property]"? Or "It is as hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle?" How about "if a man asks for you coat, give him your cloak as well"?

      That doesn't describe any Republican I ever met. The Republican Party is the party of the rich. They don't worship God, they worship money. Pat Robertson is the "wolf in sheep's clothing" Jesus warned about, and converted so many Christians to Atheism he has Satan jealous.

      Republicans use the churches to control the working man, who DOES for the most part believe in God.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  8. I don't get the problem by cliffski · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not american, but don't understand the outrage. surely this is an attempt to 'catch' those people who are making a fortune selling stuff on ebay etc, without ever declaring the income through their business or paying any corp tax.
    As a small businessman who pays every penny of tax as I should, I'm behind any method that helps catch those swine who can undercut me by not paying any tax.
    Since when is it cool to stick up for tax cheats?
    What am I missing?

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    1. Re:I don't get the problem by lamer01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree 100 percent. This is targeted towards the internet tax cheats. No individual consumer transaction details will be tracked only the total amounts received by the merchant. People on payrolls get their taxes taken out before they even get paid. Why should the small "enterpreneur" get a better treatment?

  9. Underground economy. by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So when are they going to ban paper money and coinage?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. Re:Why are SSNs evil? by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because when Social Security was first introduced, a citizens anonymity was thought to be a god-given right. It was warned by "tinfoil hat wearing nut jobs" that Social Security was evil because it required an identity card. "Your paperss pleass".

    My SS card, issued in 1968, says "For social security and tax purposes only - not for identification". The newer SS cards don't say that.

    Now they're trying to do away with Social Security and keep the cards. The "tinfoil hat wearing nut jobs" were right.

    Before long it will be a felony to not carry identification.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  11. No, It's *NEWS* by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who said it's a surprise? It's "New Reporting", which is why it's "news". New things that are important are news (you can tell by the spelling).

    What is this bizarre dismissal of important stories just because they are new developments that meet low expectations? Do you have something against people being informed that our worst expectations are being realized? Or are you Bushlike in equating your purely imaginary prior beliefs with their actual materialization?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:No, It's *NEWS* by mh1997 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...Or are you Bushlike in equating your purely imaginary prior beliefs with their actual materialization?
      Huh? Imaginary beliefs? The IRS requires you to testify against yourself to obtain information. The IRS cannot do its job without invading your privacy.

      Do you have something against people being informed that our worst expectations are being realized?
      No, if people were slightly informed how the government collects information, they would be outraged. If people read the constitution and if our government stayed within its constitutional limits, the IRS would not be in existence.

      What is this bizarre dismissal of important stories just because they are new developments that meet low expectations?
      The dismissal is because by the time you read this reply the media will still be talking about who won American Idol because celebrity worship is more important than government excess.
    2. Re:No, It's *NEWS* by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, just a note to dignify your tangential paranoid ravings. Your imaginary beliefs evidently include your foreknowledge of this new proposed reporting system, because you deny that it's news.

      Somehow your disappointment that people aren't more informed is the reason that you complain when some news tries to inform them of something new coming around that neither you nor they will probably like.

      Oh, and the Constitution grants the government the power to collect taxes, which includes income taxes when Congress passes the laws. Which, despite what paranoids like you are fond of imagining, Congress has done many times. The 1986 tax law was the single largest law ever passed, and you people would like to pretend that it's not a law at all. And there have of course been several revisions since then. But of course the only law that applies to you is the bare Constitution, not any of the laws that the Constitution creates the Congress to write and the Executive to apply.

      Overall, in your perfect self-contradiction, delusional attack on the basic operations of government - especially to collect taxes - and your weird tangents justifying dismissal of news you don't like, you are stratospherically Bushlike.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  12. Exclusive Sales Tax Destroys IRS Privacy Invasions by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The IRS and its inevitable escalation of privacy invasions is one good reason why we should discard the income tax entirely, in favor of a sales tax. At about 25% (instead of income tax that's 20-35%), our $15 TRILLION economy would produce something over $3T, which (if we stopped pouring money into the Iraq War) would completely pay for even modern bloated budgets, without deficits (and probably with substantial debt paydowns).

    Everything sold retail, with exceptions for a few "necessities", would be charged the 25% sales tax. The necessities would be raw cloth (not finished clothing, unless used and bought from a nonprofit collecting it from donations), raw food (groceries, not restaurants), health insurance, education, telecom (phone, basic cable, basic broadband), local average mass transit expenses, and home expenses on those primary homes costing (rent, mortgage, etc) in the bottom 20% of their Congressional District. Those homes would also have their median power/heat/light utilities exempted. The vendors would be the ones audited by the government, and responsible for ongoing tax collection, not the consumers, so the cost of the tax system would be part of the existing business accounting infrastructure. And violations would cause liens and seizures on the much more easily grabbed businesses.

    Wholesale taxes for registered wholesalers would be a fraction of that 25%, probably closer to 1-5%. Equity sales not resulting in majority ownership transfer would be taxed at a rate of something like 0.01-0.001%, to encourage liquidity.

    Congress could grant extra exemptions for subsidizing commerce it says the US is investing in, like home sales during housing busts or prescription drugs for seniors whose hardship is monitored by the government. But those arbitrary economics engineering projects would be easily pointed out for balancing against new debt when the government proposed deficit spending, rather than charge exempt people their fair share.

    This system would put US taxation on a fair and supportable basis for the first time. Those benefiting most from the system that protects their ability to spend money on what they want would pay the most to keep that system working. Everyone would be encouraged to save, as income and savings aren't taxed. The poorest would have their prices on necessities lowered, but so would everyone else, without the government deciding how to redistribute that money among different people. And the simplicity, fairness and much smaller population (vendors) from whom taxes are actually collected would increase compliance and reduce tax evasion: the vendor won't sell you the goods if you don't pay, and they'll lose their business if their records don't add up.

    But their records will be aggregated, not individual. The government tax authorities won't know a goddamn thing about individuals' private transactions, because they won't need to, and they won't have the raw data.

    The IRS and the income tax will just keep getting worse. Even as it increasingly fails to either manage the economy by "exemption engineering", as we can see from its sketchy results (which usually just covers up subsidies to huge multinational corps), or to even pay the bills, as the ever-booming (especially lately) National Debt proves with more data than any other human endeavor ever measured. Sales tax will do what we want, without doing what we don't want. Let's have it already.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  13. Re:Why are SSNs evil? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Most of Europe has a fine tradition of beheading rulers who try to abuse their power. We haven't done it for a while though, and it looks like the deterrent effect is starting to wear off.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  14. Re:Exclusive Sales Tax Destroys IRS Privacy Invasi by witherstaff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just don't see a flat tax, IRS abolishment, etc ever happening. I would not want to imagine the lobbying effort to quash all talk about it. Think of all the accountants, bookkeepers, H+R Blocks, IRS agents, Tax lawyers of the country that will fight tooth and nail to destroy any common sense approach.

    Paul and Hucklebee both discussed the ideas during the Republican primaries. Sadly those stories didn't get much traction to really get covered. It was a perfect opportunity to have a serious discussion about it but of course the media typically ignores any real issues .