Owe Back taxes? No passport !

[gayl]

Would you still support the policy even if the $50,000 floor for enforcement is lowered a few years down the road. $10,000? $1,000? etc?

-gauss

YES!! Unless the taxpayer has entered an automatic payment agreement or is currently cooperating with the review

 

[mystang52]

Not IRS, but here's an example of State government messing up: Back in 1986 or so, I had a NJ tax refund due me. I was notified it was in abeyance because a hospital claimed I owed them money. First, I had to call a then very bureaucratic NJ tax department just to find out what hospital.
Then, I had to call the hospital to clear up the account......except there was no balance due. I told NJ that I had the proof of no balance but they replied they were "neutral" and again referred me to the hospital. My argument that being neutral means accepting my evidence as well as the hospital's fell on deaf ears.
After NUMEROUS back-and-forths with the tax department (over about 3 months), along with numerous calls/letters to the hospital, the hospital did nothing and the tax department released my refund to the hospital.
I can see similar situation with this proposal. IRS would have nothing to lose, so might as well keep restricting passports even if contrary proof was provided.
BTW, it took a complaint letter to my governor, to finally get the HOSPITAL to return my money.

 

[youbet]

Not IRS, but here's an example of State government messing up: Back in 1986 or so, I had a NJ tax refund due me. I was notified it was in abeyance because a hospital claimed I owed them money. First, I had to call a then very bureaucratic NJ tax department just to find out what hospital.
Then, I had to call the hospital to clear up the account......except there was no balance due. I told NJ that I had the proof of no balance but they replied they were "neutral" and again referred me to the hospital. My argument that being neutral means accepting my evidence as well as the hospital's fell on deaf ears.
After NUMEROUS back-and-forths with the tax department (over about 3 months), along with numerous calls/letters to the hospital, the hospital did nothing and the tax department released my refund to the hospital.
I can see similar situation with this proposal. IRS would have nothing to lose, so might as well keep restricting passports even if contrary proof was provided.
BTW, it took a complaint letter to my governor, to finally get the HOSPITAL to return my money.

It seems you're suggesting, based on your experience in NJ, that paying fed taxes should be optional or, at most, voluntary. An interesting, Libertarian sounding point of view.

This idea of zero enforcement of tax collection has interesting possibilities. I wonder how many will volunteer to pay? How many won't pay, or won't pay in full, but will still expect benefits?

 

[mystang52]

It seems you're suggesting, based on your experience in NJ, that paying fed taxes should be optional or, at most, voluntary. An interesting, Libertarian sounding point of view.

This idea of zero enforcement of tax collection has interesting possibilities. I wonder how many will volunteer to pay? How many won't pay, or won't pay in full, but will still expect benefits?

Not at all. My point was that a government agency, with no incentive to fully research the facts, could easily do nothing to the taxpayer's detriment. Imagine a valid dispute - or better yet, proof that the IRS was in error - and the taxpayer has an upcoming vacation in one month's time. Dilatory tactics (overt or merely neglect) could force cancellation of that trip. Natch, the taxpayer would have no recourse once they were absolved of any wrongdoing.

 

[youbet]

Not at all. My point was that a government agency, with no incentive to fully research the facts, could easily do nothing to the taxpayer's detriment. Imagine a valid dispute - or better yet, proof that the IRS was in error - and the taxpayer has an upcoming vacation in one month's time. Dilatory tactics (overt or merely neglect) could force cancellation of that trip. Natch, the taxpayer would have no recourse once they were absolved of any wrongdoing.

From OP's initial post:

"Buried in December's Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is a provision that gives the IRS the right to have the State Department deny or revoke the passport of a taxpayer that has a delinquent federal tax bill of at least $50,000."

We're talking about a tax payer that is delinquent at least $50,000. This is not a tax payer who has been asked to explain a deduction or the failure to report income, but a tax payer who owes a huge amount, hasn't/won't pay, has failed to win a reprieve and is now delinquent and trying to leave the country.

I do agree with your post #27 above that the state of New Jersey should NOT be granted this authority. In fact, I see no reason why the state of New Jersey should be allowed to levy or collect taxes at all.

 

[AndyS]

Medieval Lords didn't allow their serfs to leave the fief either. And especially if they had outstanding debt to the Lord.

Jes sayin'

 

[mh]

Medieval Lords didn't allow their serfs to leave the fief either. And especially if they had outstanding debt to the Lord.

Jes sayin'

Someone who has more than 50000 in arrears is in all likelihood is not a serf , at least at the time of incurring the debt. People like that usually have no real intention of paying until something forces them to. A compromise of making them pay 1000 dollars for a year long passport might be a good alternative

 

[MooreBonds]

Someone who has more than 50000 in arrears is in all likelihood is not a serf , at least at the time of incurring the debt. People like that usually have no real intention of paying until something forces them to. A compromise of making them pay 1000 dollars for a year long passport might be a good alternative

If they have the funds to travel internationally, why aren't they satisfying their debt? I thought the IRS actually collects on debts, with things like seizing assets/bank accounts?

 

[gauss]

If they have the funds to travel internationally, why aren't they satisfying their debt? I thought the IRS actually collects on debts, with things like seizing assets/bank accounts?

If I owed the IRS over $50,000 and I owned assets, then I would probably not keep them in a US bank.

-gauss

 

[jim584672]

The ACA penalty for no insurance is the greater of $695 or 2.5% of MAGI. But it is not enforceable other than by holding back a refund. An astute person can avoid collection indefinitely. I could see how it could easily rise to $50,000. Seems like they want a way to punish non compliers and this would be it.

 

[youbet]

I could see how it could easily rise to $50,000.

Easily rise to $50k? Actually, it seems like it would take many years unless the person's MAGI was very high. And even then, it would only impact people who need to travel internationally. I think it's a real stretch to say that this is an attempt to enforce ACA rules.

 

[youbet]

If I owed the IRS over $50,000 and I owned assets, then I would probably not keep them in a US bank.

-gauss

Agreed. And a good reason why this "no pay taxes, no passport for you!" rule should be in effect. It seems like it would only impact serious, high dollar, tax scofflaws.

 

[haloFIRE]

What could possibly go wrong?

By linking IRS and State Department IT systems....