A.G. Kalman wrote:
- quote -

Not all versions of the story mentioned the proposed
amendment.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

See the last sentence in the fair-use excerpt. DOD is asking
Congress to amend the tax code.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"A.G. Kalman" <glendale202-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

**context snipped**

- quote -

Certainly it's possible that a reservist could have filed a
timely change of address notice (via certified mail, return
receipt requested), but DOD failed to correctly update the
database. So some of the reservists for which they'd be
searching would not necessarily be in violation of the law.

In isolation, not a biggie. It's the slippery slope--what
"reasonable use" will the government find next for the IRS
database?

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -

Perhaps the government is looking to save postage by
including dod notices in with IRS mail. We are just talking
about data mining. What's good for bill gates.... Perhaps an
opt out provision in the tax return boilerplate.

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Bill Brock wrote:

- quote -

It appears (by my reading of it) that IRC section 6103 would
have to be amended first. I couldn't find any exception in
it for the disclosure of "taxpayer identity information" for
the calling of individuals to military service.

Unless they change the law, I see this as an unauthorized
disclosure.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Bill Brock wrote:

- quote -

To answer the question, YES, DOD IS crazy to even think
this spying would past muster.

Although, we in the profession do realize that the gobment
does match up delinquent dads. (correction: delinquent
parents) with possible refunds. So, who's to say? I DO
think congress should step in an quickly quell this
inclination.

Other opinions?

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Bill Brock wrote:

- quote -

It does on the surface appear to be "Big Brotherism."
However, members of the reserve forces have a legal
obligation to file change of address notices with the DOD.
(As a side note, we are discussing individuals who are
members of the inactive reserve forces who are still subject
to being reactivated.) Failure to keep the DOD apprised of
one's address is a violation of federal law. The DOD is now
asking Congress to amend Title 26 to allow them to obtain
current addresses for those reservists who are not in
compliance. Personally, I don't have a problem with using
the address database for this purpose.

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

wbrock[at]21stcentury.net (Bill Brock) wrote in news:10aocd2l94dk028

- quote -

I believe you will find that the enlistment contract
specifies that an enlistee will serve a minimum period of
active duty, and then a remaining term of reserve duty for a
total of 6-8 years. Persons leaving active duty, but with
remaining obligation, are required to keep their services
advised of their addresses and are subject to recall to
active duty per contract. These reserves (Individual Ready
Reserve) are not the same as ones who have voluntarily
affiliated with drilling units (reserve or guard who have
mobilization billets and accumulate points towards
retirement).

scott s.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Normally, I don't think it's appropriate to post political
stories to this board, but I think the following story could
encourage noncompliance and affect the income of tax
professionals....

******************
BEGIN FAIR-USE EXCERPT

FORTH WORTH, Texas, May 18 (UPI) -- The Defense Department
has proposed using U.S. Internal Revenue Service data to
track down reservists with which they have lost contact.

The measure, which department officials say has been vetted
by its lawyers, would allow the Pentagon to access the
addresses for tens of thousands of people who still face
active-duty recall, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.

Congress and President Bush would have to approve an
amendment to the tax code in order legalize the practice.

END FAIR-USE EXCERPT
**************

Is the Defense Department crazy? This smacks of Big
Brotherism (using the IRS to track down folks who haven't
violated any law), and sure isn't going to help the IRS
promote voluntary compliance.

Bill Brock, CPA
William H. Brock, Ltd.
Chicago

billbrock at billbrock dot net

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->