Thats the idea with the Fair Tax. I can only argue for the bill as presented though. If they decide to change it, then we can address that. Likeliness of change doesnt affect my position that auditing would be less likely under the Fair Tax as designed.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

As it should be if fraud or negligence are involved.

Anyone who has financial circumstances of income and deductions beyond the norm should be using professionals to prepare tax filings. To not do so is inviting audits.

That statement has been made by taxpayers since before the Roman Empire.

You bet. Justice is available to all who can afford it.

Which makes it a crime. Which was my point.
Not "beyond the norm". As the article points out, most audits are performed on people decidedly smack-dab in the middle - in other words, in the norm. So the government's position is: You'd betta' buy some protection, mooley. 'Cuz if youse don't, we gonna' come down on you like a hammer!

Perhaps I should hire a lawyer to walk around with me so I can make sure I follow all the various laws?
And? You would think in all that time we would've learned something.

The people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of the people. Every year, millions of honest, law-abiding, tax-paying Americans worry they've done something wrong and that the IRS will come knocking on their doors. They spend millions of dollars and millions of hours making sure they jump through the proper hoops and dance the proper jigs. Of course, if more Americans knew how wrong this was, if they felt empowered to change the way the government collects its revenue, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. But we've become sheep. Jumping and dancing every April.

It should be a crime.

Hire a CPA to prepare taxes with valid information and there's no need for a lawyer for other than estate planning purposes.

That's their self-imposed problem. I don't consider hiring a professional to perform tasks where I have no expertise as jumping through hoops.

If it were clear what law one was breaking then you would have a point. But the fact is those who created the laws don't know what they are, those charged with enforcing those laws don't know what they are, and those expected to follow those laws don't know what they are.
I get you. I need to spend money to make sure I'm complying with the tax law. Therefore, using your same logic, I should need to hire a full-time lawyer to make sure I'm following all the other various, non-tax related, laws.
That is not the point of having laws. The citizenry should not have to fear for its lives or livelihoods simply because a law is unclear. And it should not have to pay someone to provide protection from its government. The purpose of having a written set of laws is so that everyone understands what they are, and are not, allowed to do. My responsibility is to follow the law. The government's responsibility is to provide me with laws I, and everyone else, can follow. Instead, the government has created unintelligible laws and the Gestapo to enforce it, all the while promoting a multi-billion dollar protection racket that has a vested interest in keeping the whole thing going.

The fact that most Americans care so little for these facts is the reason we still have an arcane and obtuse tax code that no one understands.

I realized that's what's actually bothering you, you can't afford competent tax preparation or legal counsel.

Man, I love people who make assumptions! Anything else you want to pull out of your ass? Whew! Thanks, man. I needed that today.

The point, my reckless friend, is that I should not need to afford justice. I do not need a lawyer to review traffic law with me everytime I get into my car. I do not need a lawyer to look over every store receipt with me and explain the current status of contract law every time I buy something. I do not need a lawyer for the vast bulk of my relatively complicated life. But for some reason I need an accountant every three months of the year.

People should not have to pay to follow the law, and they should not have to fear their inability to do so. Arguing that a single parent living on minimum wage has only herself to blame for not spending money on "competent tax preparation" is as ridiculous as arguing that an innocent man has only himself to blame for not being able to afford a lawyer.

I rather think that is the point, the tax code is almost immorally complicated. There used to be a basic principle in the law that any ambiguity would be resolved in favor of the individual, hence if you have parts of the tax code where (as has been shown time and time again) even the IRS help line gives conflicting responses, it should be decided in favor of the tax preparer.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

Property seizures only occur, generally, after one has ignored the collection demand letters, failed to use arbritation measures such as Offer in Compromise, currently non collectible if eligible, set up payment arrangements, etc. Exceptions only include if the property was used directly in illegal activity or the IRS determines the collection of tax is in jeapordy. Of course, this is also after the IRS has attempted to place levies on financial assets or one has hidden the assets from collection. It is still the fault of the individual to correct the problem. And BTW, you are given your appeal rights and options when in an audit from the very beginning.

Jail time is when you fraudulently deceive the government or committed other criminal activity specified in the code. It is all there in "black and white." But your argument is equivalent to: "I did not know murdering somebody was against the law?"

Actually it does to some degree. Again, no change audits have risen over the years. Some have gotten wise that accurate records are a key to proving the deductions, credits, calculation of income, etc. In all honesty, the tax code is not defined to meet EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE in EVERY SITUATION, Cato Not even traffic laws are designed that way.

The problem with the tax code, as with the immigration code and other federal statues is that it is based on intent. How do you define "reasonable expenses?" The same way that one would define "what a reasonable person should do in a sexual harrassment case?"

Maybe, maybe not. There is not such thing as a "fair tax system." There will always be winners and losers, preferences to some and no preferences to others. Seriously, take a look at the sales tax in your area and see if there is a difference between frozen meals and "nutritional meals" One is tax the other is not all because one can put a label marked "nutritional" A perfect example is look at the difference between a Swanson's frozen meal and a Healthy Choice frozen meal. You will see very similar nutritional standards and yet one is taxed and the other is not.

We can simplify the code by taking away itemized deductions, nonrefundable credits, adjustments to income, etc. However, I don't think you would agree with that scenario because you want to lower your tax bill to what you think is equitable? The same will go with either a flat tax or a VAT or NRST scheme. To me, it is all the same.

And yes, I want everyone to claim the proper deductions, credits, exemptions, etc, but that is not reality. Neither would be to have a "perfect" NRST scheme or any other scheme. There will always be poeple, more in one sheme than others, that will attempt to defraud the govenrment, whether it would be state or federal. Even in my state, there have been businesses not wanting to pay sales taxes. Do you want to give them a break as well?

Blame it on Congress, both Republican and Democrat for the complexity. IRS only interprets and enforces the laws.

However, those who state they have been giving conflicting information, I always ask, "so what did you change your stocy in order to get the answer you want?"

Technically, you should have a legal representative on retainer. And one should be hired if you are doing estate planning, financial planning, particularly international financial planning, purchasing investment property, etc.

Agian, we can make it real simple, whatever money you make, send it to the government. That way, no one gets a break, no one can complain it is too complicated, it is not too vague, etc. Of course, the argument would then be, "we live in a fascist/communist/socialist state? You cannot have it both ways. By attempting to make the code more fair, the more complicated the code will become. It will not matter how the tax scheme works, it will always be complicated.

I want to give everyone a break, but there is no excuse for breaking the law. Regardless of the method of taxation, you got to pay it. Under the fair tax though, businesses do not pay taxes on purchases either, so that should cut down on fraud.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

If it is a crime then we should be given due process. The fact is, we are not. The IRS serves as accuser, judge, jury, and hangman.
Hardly. I'm not talking about guilt or innocence, Hudson. I'm talking about the process and the organization.
Which is one reason for going through the legal process.
Again, I am not talking about winners, losers, guilty, or not guilty. I'm talking about 1) a tax code that is impossible to understand, yet those laws govern our lives; 2) a tax collection method that ignores any semblence of due process.
There are other ways of simplifying the tax code. You're taking an unnecessarily extreme position. I'm not talking about equity, either.
Huh? According to what technical manual? If the laws in this country get so convoluted (as convoluted as the tax code) that I need to seek the advice of a lawyer on every move I make, then I guarantee you we will have a revolution.