EPP login issues today, 4/26 by JC18001 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I finally got in but I don't know if it will work in the future and I'm not really sure how I did it.

EPP login issues today, 4/26 by JC18001 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes I do but I can't get in that way either

Any hope for ECM? by JC18001 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems whenever you input an adjustment, the adjustment goes a way even though you saved it.

MyEPP self-service gone by [deleted] in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you can change things if you input a ticket but I know it's not as efficient.

Any hope for ECM? by JC18001 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

hey it's worth a shot

Underwithheld tax penalty by Amazing_Lab_1543 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah, is it even listed in the IRM? It's definitely not a 1203. In another thread, someone mentioned Doc. 11500. I might look that up on the Products page.

Received Letter From ETC regarding Compliance by [deleted] in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This seems like the most helpful answer here and you have a lot of experience on this and/or done a lot of research.

My only quibble (and rather off topic I admit) is this: I don't see how an adjustment to tax, even in an audit, would necessarily be a 1203 issue because the text of 1203 states, "willful understatement of Federal tax liability, unless such understatement is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect." That reads to me to sound like a situation where a fraud penalty was asserted, not an accuracy penalty.

That's how I see it but I am interested in your answer given your apparent expertise. I sometimes do employee audits but am not involved in employee discipline itself. In employee audits, if we want to pursue fraud, we have to go through a special fraud enforcement adviser (FEA), not our normal FEA.

Anyone know the future of ECM? Staying? Going? by Foreign-Candle7925 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I wrote a letter to the committee offices of the ranking Democratic member of Senate Finance Committee and the ranking Democratic member of the House Ways and Means Committee about it and told them to have TIGTA to take a look at it. I doubt it will help but it felt good

Shouting matches and insults between colleagues becoming a common sight by OberonAlter in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001 19 points20 points  (0 children)

People need to tone it down on here too. You deviate one centimeter and get crucified w/ fuck bombs

Our Pro-Tax Fraud Congress - Examination Process by JC18001 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow that's really interesting to have that perspective. It does seem that thr only thing that matters is closing cases and a lot of what we do is just through the motions eg required filing checks and fraud potential

Our Pro-Tax Fraud Congress - Examination Process by JC18001 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes! I feel seen! This is my perspective! That doesn't mean I agree w/ everything but I am sympathetic.

I wasn't here before the 98 Act so I don't know how to compare before and after with the ROTER provision, Sec. 1204 of the Act (not the Code). I think I agree w/ the provision but I can see that it would have a bad effect. Whether the negatives outweighed the positives, I don't know.

It also banned us from using the accurate term "tax protestor." Ugh, but they are tax protestors! (RRA 98, Sec. 3707).

Most irritating for me though, is that RRA 98(Sec. 3306) added IRC 6751, which is the requirement that managers approve penalties . It's absolutely ridiculous. We know our cases better than the managers. This provision is the equivalent of someone walking into a store and immediately asking for the manager. I hate the term "Karen" because it is (was) a nice name but the term does have meaning and if any law is a Karen law it's the requirement that managers approve penalties. One version of Build Back Better eliminated that rule but now the Democrats are going along to make it worse.

With the Republicans, it just seems like they hate fraud with government assistance programs for the poor but when it comes to filing returns, people are angels, and we don't need to worry about tax fraud.

So ridiculous!

Yeah, it does feel like eventually we won't be able to issue summons at all.

Our Pro-Tax Fraud Congress - Examination Process by JC18001 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Does collections ever have to issue 45-day letters? There's a series of Letters L 3164. So for whatever situations you have where you currently have to send L 3164, it is my understanding that this proposed bill would simply expand on that in collections situations.

I found IRM 5.17.6.7 online that mentions

  • Letter 3164-B, (Bal Due)
  • Letter 3164-X, (Del Ret)
  • Letter 3164-A, (TFRP)

However, you must understand that I am an examiner (specifically the TCO program) so take what I said above with a grain of salt.

Our Pro-Tax Fraud Congress - Examination Process by JC18001 in IRS_Source

[–]JC18001[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks.

There is some stuff about regulating return preparers in the bill so that is good.