Demanding that the IRS go against political enemies (such as what tRUMP and his IRS Commissioner

[SWBTATTReg]

did w/ McCabe and Comey by performing very intensive audits against their returns, etc.) sounds like something that tRUMP would do, anyone in their right minds would believe that tRUMP would do something like this against two of 'his enemies', no questions asked.

As for someone still maintaining tRUMP's innocence, let me remind people that the IRS would not perform such intensive audits on lower income persons, the waste of tax dollars against the so-called benefits gained from such an audit would kind of defeat the purposes of the audits.

Although I don't know the specific 'triggers' that the IRS uses in determining who gets an audit or not, the trigger points have long been a debate among tax accountants and auditors (although there are some obvious answers, but there are like 10 different items that are considered as to who gets an extensive audit or not).

Another biggie that I wanted to mention here is that we shouldn't stop at looking at just the IRS for tRUMP's revenge-filled orgies. I strongly suspect that the entire width and scope of federal programs and / federal agencies were leaned on by tRUMP and his coharts to insert pressure on those that angered tRUMP and / or his enablers. It only is logical. Did your state lose tax dollars for various (and illogical) reasons? Did residents of your state suffer any adverse efforts from mismanaged federal programs? I do seem to recall where the red states did seem to gain the upper hand on some issues when tRUMP was first in office, and blue states suffered (this is when news articles came out by the dozens touting the vast gulf in blue states' tax dollars paid and tax dollars received (vs. red states)).

One other thing I recall (from a friend of mine selling some wetlands acreage in southern MO), is that he did have some issues, but setting aside other comparable acreage was acceptable. However, the agency dealing w/ such issues could be, on the other hand, be totally against others for some unfathomable reason. Thus, the sale of this particular property would suffer.

[exboyfil]

1. Auditing a public worker

unless they or the their wife has a private business seems a horrible use of resources. You can't hide a government salary.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. You got it, man. Nailed it on the nail head. It's ridiculous considering the sheer amount of

IRS resources spent in such an intensive audit vs. a relatively lower earner ($100 K or less, and probably even a higher threshold of income here, I'm guessing).

[Salviati]

3. While that would make sense, I believe it is also not true.

Lower income individuals are targeted at higher than average rates, as they are easy audits for the IRS to do, and recently the largest decrease in audit rates are for those with the highest incomes...

Audit trends vary by taxpayer income. In recent years, IRS audited taxpayers with incomes below $25,000 and those with incomes of $500,000 or more at higher-than-average rates. But, audit rates have dropped for all income levels—with audit rates decreasing the most for taxpayers with incomes of $200,000 or more.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960#:~:text=Audit%20trends%20vary%20by%20taxpayer,incomes%20of%20%24200%2C000%20or%20more.

[SWBTATTReg]

4. Those 'audits' that are done still are the easier, more simple of audits to do, hence those w/

less incomes still get hit w/ audits on a percentage basis, vs. those in higher income brackets. The IRS has been begging for more money to do their job effectively, but republican legislators have refused. I guess to protect their rich buddies.

[Salviati]

5. Agreed, which is really dumb....

... because dollar for dollar, as I understand it, those harder, high end audits are one of the best returns on investment for government spending.

[SWBTATTReg]

6. Exactly. As an auditor, I've always wondered at this stupid decision tree that they used

to determine who gets audited and who doesn't. Now, I can understand obvious mistakes on tax returns, or perhaps outsiders alerting the IRS to cases of fraud (it does happen), and now of course, with the revenge thing RUMP is involved with, that the IRS would move to act on such returns.

The IRS should concentrate their efforts on the, let's say top 5 to 10% of all income earners, I think that far more tax dollars would be recovered, since they (the top 10%) seem to employ more iffy tax schemes (they pay accountants, lawyers too, who spend literally all of their time cutting their clients' taxes to zero if possible). And these audits, since fewer in scope can more effectively concentrate on truly who's cheating the tax man.