irspro,
Does what you are saying go for both civil and criminal audits?
You mention original documents, while Duffy's letter refers to copies instead of original documents. Any thought on that?
"Does what you are saying go for both civil and criminal audits?"
The use of the Document Request feebly addressed the generic phrase, "hundred thousand documents removed." Copies of documents willingly and probably forced would not be technically termed "removed" where "furnished' would be the more accurate term. Furnsished copies does not fully address whether the copies were made on either the taxpayer's or the IRS used their own equipment. Criminal fraud could involve "edited invoices and other documents" which would require a need for the criminal agent to provide some certifying mark on a document copy that would become a part of the permanent file. Whether this case progressed to the Criminal Division or not, I know that there should have been a clear understanding, up front, whether the copies would be returned or not. Good tax audit procedure would be for the taxpayer to make two copies of requested documents if the taxpayer feels they will need their own trail as furnished copies of documents are not generally meant for return to the taxpayer. In all my many years of taxation which occurred in my earlier legal career, I never had a taxpayer furnish me a copy of a document which I would used to make a copy for the permanent audit workpaper file with the funished copy expected to be returned.
Relatively speaking, I didn't intend to make a federal case out of "my opinion that the alleged query of the taxpayer on return of hundreds of thousands of original documents or (copies)" was the capstone on an "alleged No Change" federal tax audit. I intended to convey my opinion that the allegation was simply a ploy of proof of a final "No Change" case where some seem to demean the "INFORMANT", even alleged SDA ministers. Hint: Alleged LOVE OFFERINGS to ministers by their members are not gifts(period) so it better to be thought a fool rather than open one's mouth about a fellow member! This is better understood when you understand that the tax code is written with "a view toward taxation
"You mention original documents, while Duffy's letter refers to copies instead of original documents. Any thought on that??
You may be surprised to learn that all "Informant" cases are not examined, in fact very few, but, the deterrant effect works wonders. Spite in domestic relations matter and friendships gone awry do not always furnish reliable information. Difference in opinions of morality levels is the root cause of these disagreements.
The IRS has a very strict integrity program which includes interviews of application named references as well as law enforcement files in detail. The references furnished by the employee were detailed to the extent that I was approached by my references as to my position with the IRS needing such detailed information. My onsite interview may have been tempered by my scholarship, college work record, and my request for an opportunity rather than a job.
Th continuing integrity program includes the detailed examination of the latest tax returns filed for 3 years. These examinations were so intense as to explain in detail my charitable contributions down to my allocation to "Sabbath School Expense with a more detailed explanation of what was a Sabbath School Quaterly" I'll not go into the accuracy ratio I had be withstand to be hired; however, I think you can faintly surmise the IRS was looking with a view toward denial with that detail. The platform requires that all tax returns are manually classified and/or examined during the employees tenure. Furthermore, the employee must again withstand another 3 year examination for any break in employment with the IRS.
The employee's work product, time and attendance, complaints of every kind and character(within and without) are subject to being monitored by the IRS Inspection Service specially departmentalized out of control of the local IRS District. This being the case, would you advise that it would be foolish to believe the IRS would recieve even a copy of a document as proof in a work product, especially in an Informant's case, they could feel free to return their only records to the taxpayer that would break the trail of any subsequent Inspection Service review? Why would any honest person, other than one ignorant to the workings of the IRS, advance such a rumor of a "final and complete" end to a tax audit where neither tax nor penalties were proposed. In theory, a tax case over a 9 month span could involve 3,000 man-hours of time. Success with the IRS wouldn't include a heavy dose of this type of work quality on No Change cases whereby you may be subject to some re-training.
Remember that IRS examination officers and criminal investigators are subject to a high degree of baribery and even attempted bribery. Those accused of even potential fraud could be expected to be rated up in the charts. Some criminal elements have been known to make false accusations against against employees and some true accusations. An example is when a revenue agent was examining a spirits distributor that simply placed several bottles of the finest spirits on the floor of the agent's auto. The agent must have thought the scenario was so easy that a later request for more of the same would would never later present itself. Well, the request was fullfilled and reported to the agent's superiors who turned the allegation over to the Inspection Service who investigated the matter probably without any great detail with the agent voluntarily resigning probably knowing that they would not survive a polygraph test.
Hopefully, even those with stumbling-around intelligence can understand my stance on a query to return copies of taxpayer's records as a full and final settlement indicator in a tax audit where potential fraud was alleged at some level! I can only hope the taxpayers are not totally confused by the potential withdrawal of the alleged participation by the Criminal Investigation Division as a full and final settlement. I have learned on a number of occasions where the hand I spat in filled before the hand within which I hoped!
I stand ready to furnish more or correct any misunderstandings at your request from the "inside" of 25 of my total 50+ years in re taxes even through this past week! The IRS granted me the opportunity to be able to practice a certain degree of law while employed where I am sure I was monitored ever more closely, believe it or not even though I did not practice any tax law until I openly hung out my shingle upon retirement.
Added on Edit:
Upon saving the original message and upon viewing some near messages, I thought it be wise to comment that it was not my intention to even hint any possible malfeasance even in light that the gibberish I have read on "final closure" here did not fit the pattern I had always noted in the normal course of business in connection with the strict integrity platform during employment.
Edited: To add quotations in first query and to add the last paragraph.
Author
Topic: Approved SDA Media Outlet Publishes an Article about the IRS Investigation (Read 148081 times)
