- quote -

Although I don't know exactly how the software operates, one
would think that it would screen schedule a deductions for
even 1,000 amounts, e.g. $5,000 charitable contributions, and
$2,000 for goods donated. Yes, some people will estimate on
the low side and round it off, knowing they can prove at least
that amount, but more often than not, it's a fly by night
preparer at work.

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
Wed July 19th, 2006

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"rick++" <rick303[at]hotmail.com> wrote

- quote -

Can you believe the nerve of the Nigerian government to issue
a travel alert, claiming of all things that there are ~~scam~~
artists in Europe. The travel alert said to "beware" of
pick-pockets, but was silent on the European e-mail scam
(apparently it's not that big of a deal).

--
Paul Thomas, CPA
paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:

- quote -

Yes, I'm guessing the simple identity-theft type of returns-
whee SS#, DOB, name and address dont match records. Ditto
for dependents claimed with child credits. Especially
multiple returns from the same PO Box. Once the refund check
is cashed, there is no real person to catch.

This is a favorite fraud of those in prision or from a certain
west coast African country.

==========
Moderator:
You mean I didn't win the West African Internet Lottery?

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

The program specifically screens for fraudulent refund
claims. The IRS has now already paid the refunds. If the
refund claim was fraudulent to begin with, the chances of
getting any of the money back, or even finding the people
who filed the returns, are probably very close to zero. And
the people who filed fraudulent refund claims are not going
to be coming to "folks like us" for help.

Bob Sandler

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Mike Wellman <irsfixer[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

It will be interesting to see just how this gets handled.

On the one hand, the IRS QRP program to flag and send to
Criminal Investigations Division certain suspected reurns,
allows CID to place a hold on those refunds while they
investigate.

By not having the 2005 software in place, CID could not
place holds on refunds.

On the other hand, Nina Olsen's June 30, 2006 report to
Congress cites CI Holds as one of the areas the Tax Payer
Advocate is actively trying to change.

So the contractor not having the software available last
year lowered the CI holds and accidentally satisfied one of
TPA's Goals :^)

Going after, for example, fly by night tax preparers who
invent expenses and tax credits and then disappear, might
allow going after taxapyers eventually, but the reaal
culprits are the bad preparers, and they will disappear into
the woodwork. This sort of technique had been caught by the
Questionable Returns Program.

==== ==== ====

I also can't help wondering if some of the emergency Katrina
related software, form design, e-file related changes, etc
were a cause of the late delivered QRP software, and if
maybe a decision was made to trade off getting the software
to handle Katrina/Wilma/Rita out ahead of fraud sofwtare
software?

It will be interesting to see this played out, but I suspect
there's more to it than just the headlines we've read.

__
Art Kamlet ArtKamlet [at] AOL.com Columbus OH K2PZH

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

- quote -

Some of that money is going to be attributable to true
fraudulent returns. ie: that they won't know who, or won't
be able to catch who filed the fraudulent return, so they
won't be able to prosecute the offender, and they won't be
able to collect if/when they do. That's maybe a third to a
half of those returns. The others may be collectable at
some point.

I trust that the IRS will work on backtracking those refunds.

I do not trust that the press will ever get a story out
without a slant to it.

--
Paul Thomas, CPA
paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

Bob Sandler wrote:

- quote -

One thing I did not understand is why they say they "lost" the
money since they have plenty of time to rerun the returns
through a program that works. It just means that they will
not collect all of it and it will put a big burden on
collections, not to mention create business for folks like us.

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >

"The Internal Revenue Service cost the government $200 million
to $300 million this year because a computer program that
screens tax returns for fraudulent refunds wasn't operating."

"As a result, the IRS has stopped only 34 percent of the
fraudulent refund claims that it had caught by this time last
year, the tax collectors said."

Full story:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4048276.html

Bob Sandler

<< ================================================== ===== > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2006) - All rights reserved. > << ================================================== ===== >