-
Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
dancers may want to pay particular attention to this news story, because while it is anecdotal it also illustrates the types of 'spending' side analysis that the IRS is now using to challenge reported income amounts.
(snip)"$10 an hour with 2 kids? IRS pounces
Rachel Porcaro knows she's hardly rich. When you're a single mom making 10 bucks an hour, you don't need government experts to tell you how broke you are.
But that's what happened. The government not only told Porcaro she was poor. They said she was too poor to make it in Seattle.
It all started a year ago, when Porcaro, a 32-year-old mom with two boys, was summoned to the Seattle office of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). She had been flagged for an audit.
She couldn't believe it. She made $18,992 the previous year cutting hair at Supercuts. A few hundred of that she spent to have her taxes prepared by H&R Block.
"I asked the IRS lady straight upfront — 'I don't have anything, why are you auditing me?' " Porcaro recalled. "I said, 'Why me, when I don't own a home, a business, a car?' "
The answer stunned both Porcaro and the private tax specialist her dad had gotten to help her.
"They showed us a spreadsheet of incomes in the Seattle area," says Dante Driver, an accountant at Seattle's G.A. Michael and Co. "The auditor said, 'You made eighteen thousand, and our data show a family of three needs at least thirty-six thousand to get by in Seattle."
"They thought she must have unreported income. That she was hiding something."(snip)
(snip)"I'll just tell you Rachel's story
She had a yearlong odyssey into the maw of the IRS. After being told she couldn't survive in Seattle on so little, she was notified her returns for both 2006 and 2007 had been found "deficient." She owed the government more than $16,000 — almost an entire year's pay.
She couldn't pay it. Her dad, Rob, has run a local painting business, Porcaro Power Painting, for 30 years. He asked his accountant, Driver, for help.
Rachel's returns weren't all that complicated. At issue, though, was that she and her two sons, ages 10 and 8, were all living at her parents' house in Rainier Beach (she pays $400 a month rent). So the IRS concluded she wasn't providing for her children and therefore couldn't claim them as dependents.
She stood to lose what is called earned income tax credit, a refund targeted to help low-income workers. You qualify only if you're working, as Rachel has been.
Driver quickly determined the IRS was wrong in how it was interpreting the tax laws. He sent in the necessary code citations and hoped that would be the end of it.
Instead, the IRS responded by launching an audit of Rachel's parents.
"I was floored," says Rob Porcaro, 59. "I get audited now and then in my business, so I've been through it before. But to have them go after me because of my daughter, well, I've never heard of anything like it."
Rob and his wife, Patty, had to send in house blueprints, bank statements, old utility bills. Rachel was asked to prove her children were hers, as well as document the money she'd spent on her children's clothes, health care and so on.
They racked up $10,000 in accountant bills — $8,000 of which Driver is trying to recover from the IRS.
In the end, the parents were cleared. The IRS also backed off trying to reclaim Rachel's earned income tax credit.
But the agency insisted Rachel couldn't prove she was supporting her children — she didn't have enough receipts — so she had to stop claiming them as dependents. A few weeks ago she paid back $1,438 (plus penalties and interest!) on that issue.
Way to go, IRS. You did an investigation likely costing tens of thousands of dollars (counting both sides). To squeeze a grand out of a single mom who did nothing wrong.
Legally, Rachel's kids now are in tax limbo. I met them at the Porcaros' house and they seemed real enough, jostling and pleading to play video games. But as far as the IRS is concerned, they don't exist. Neither Rachel nor her parents can claim them as dependents."(snip)
from
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Wasn't there a movie made a few years back with a similar story line? A family who lived off the land (not unlike the Amish but weren't Amish) and the IRS said there was no way they could live with so little money, so therefor they MUST be doing something illegal.
Can't remember the name of the movie, but that was the basis of it. I'm glad that mother went to the press. I would have done the same as well as called my Senator and Congressman too.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
That's pretty disgusting alright. The government gets more and more corrupt all the time. This is what happens when times get tough, and I think they are gonna get tougher.
As a benefit, perhaps they can magically cure cancer when they take over health care. They'll just say according to their studies it is impossible for one to have that cancer and so you are cured!
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deogol
That's pretty disgusting alright. The government gets more and more corrupt all the time. This is what happens when times get tough, and I think they are gonna get tougher.
Yep, and poor single mothers getting EIC are low hanging fruit compared to billionaire Swiss numbered bank account holders. It's like the cops busting medical marijuana users for possession and ignoring the Mexican drug cartels because that's just too hard.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
^^^ granted that your point re 'going after' the offshore tax havens used for decades by the 'rich' is valid ... but the more pertinent point is that the IRS is now using ZIP code specific 'cost of living' database information versus reported income as a 'flag' for audits. And you'll also note from the news story that the lady in question was an 'independent contractor', thus receiving tips and other income in cash - which undoubtedly also played some role in being 'flagged' for the IRS audit.
All of this is directly pertinent to dancers ... who like the lady in question may also have reported incomes that deviate significantly from the ZIP code specific 'cost of living' database values for comparative local incomes, and where a significant portion of their incomes are paid in cash without 'official' 3rd party documentation ( i.e. W2's or 1099's ).
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
considering how many strippers post on this site about making 100s per shift while living with their parents, that part of Ms. Porcaro's story is also relevant to audit risk.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
^^^^
As I have pointed out in another related thread, look for more of this from BOTH the IRS and STATE tax authoriities. Tax Depts. share info. State Tax Depts. have access to and make use of IRS databases. Many states are trying to crack down on actual residents who CLAIM to be official residents of low tax states to avoid paying taxes. The root cause is that both Uncle Sam and many states are starving for funds and are getting creative to try and increase collections.
As miabella has pointed out, this has DIRECT potential impact on dancers.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
^^^ These days the government doesn't even make databases. After the Total Information Awareness fiasco, they started exploring the use of civilian commercial databases. These do not come under regulation as the sourcing and storage of the data is problematic for the government, while the use of other's data is not.
Exotic dancers who use their credit cards/debit cards for everything should be aware they are leaving a trail detailing their (ability to spend) spending habits with information warehouses. For example:
Connect to your best prospects and build deeper relationships with your current customers through the consumer insight offered by Experian® Marketing Services. We bring you the critical data you need to help you optimize your advertising media investments and increase ROI by reaching and sustaining your best markets.
...
Credit card sales — Prospect Plus gives you access to buyer information gathered from the entire catalog industry. You can identify active buyers who are convenience-oriented and pay for their catalog and online purchases with credit cards. This transaction information enables you to analyze consumers' recent buying activity plus improve the predictive power of your data for internal analysis and modeling. With more than 60 product categories to select from you're sure to achieve the customization you need. Overcome your toughest challenges whether related to new card acquisition, usage and activation, retention or receivable growth.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
^^That is only pertinent if the individual is hiding something. I always kept detailed and accurate records for everything. Dancing isn't that complicated of a business to track--no inventory, no employees, no accounts receivables. It only took me maybe an hour a month to update my records for that month.
If a dancer (or anyone else for that matter) is willfully hiding income, then obviously that person needs to be audited. Also, the IRS has long audited people whose lifestyle was inconsistent with their income. That certainly didn't sound like the care in the OP.
What puzzles me is that extended family members sharing a home, since when is that situation an inability to support your minor children? If anything it argues for the validity of Rachel's tax return figures, not against.
I guess common sense is not a prerequisite to taking a job as an IRS auditor.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Quote:
That is only pertinent if the individual is hiding something
Unfortunately, in an environment where income reporting doesn't have any authoritative 3rd party documentation behind it (i.e. W2's or 1099's), this isn't necessarily true. I know of more than one dancer who reported all of their actual income ( well, within reason ), but who was later hit with an audit where the IRS argued that they actually earned more than they reported. The IRS argument was based on local ZIP code based cost of living data, documented paper trails of large expenditures ( i.e. a fancy new car ), etc. as well as - shall we say - less than diligent business record keeping. Unfortunately, when incomes consist of mostly cash transactions, it is impossible for the IRS to prove how much money the person actually earned. But even more unfortunately, in cash businesses, it is also impossible for the person to prove that they did NOT earn as much money as the IRS estimates.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
there have already been numerous cases of selective enforcement of post 9/11 terrorism laws, where people who saved up cash (and could verify they earned it, such a woman who cashed a life insurance check) had the cash seized without just cause beyond 'anyone carrying around several thousand dollars in cash must be a terrorist'.
so right now people who can account for every dollar of cash they have risk having a large sum seized if they drive to a car dealership to purchase a car in cash and get stopped by the wrong officer.
selective enforcement is the likely outcome long term, such as the poor woman in the OP, and that is very bad potential news for dancers and any other marginal group giving to having or carrying around cash.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Melonie
Unfortunately, in an environment where income reporting doesn't have any authoritative 3rd party documentation behind it (i.e. W2's or 1099's), this isn't necessarily true. I know of more than one dancer who reported all of their actual income ( well, within reason ), but who was later hit with an audit where the IRS argued that they actually earned more than they reported. The IRS argument was based on local ZIP code based cost of living data, documented paper trails of large expenditures ( i.e. a fancy new car ), etc. as well as - shall we say - less than diligent business record keeping. Unfortunately, when incomes consist of mostly cash transactions, it is impossible for the IRS to prove how much money the person actually earned. But even more unfortunately, in cash businesses, it is also impossible for the person to prove that they did NOT earn as much money as the IRS estimates.
Since there is no way for the IRS to track every cash purchase that a dancer makes with her tips, and since it is quite possible she could under-report her income (by thousands, even tens of thousands) what can they really do to you? Granted, what you said about not being able to prove that you did NOT earn as much money as the IRS claims if most of your purchases were made with cash is true, isn't the principle that you are not guilty until proven guilty true as well? I'd think that the lack of evidence (i.e. not enough evidence/no paper trail with cash purchases) would be enough to get them off your back after a brief investigation. If they can't prove it then what can they legally do?
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
I have to agree with Laurisa on this one. Since when does the IRS require proof of something that doesn't exist? They audit a person to find out if a person is hiding money, not to force a person to prove they didn't earn money for which no proof exists of ever having earned the money in the first place.
Also, the caveat in Melonie's statement of dancers keeping shoddy records is the exact point I made. It isn't hard to keep good and accurate records. Balancing a checkbook is harder IMO. If every other dancer that works for a particular club claims she earned $500 a shift and one girl claims that she earned $50 per shift, if I were the IRS I'd think something was up, too.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Quote:
Since there is no way for the IRS to track every cash purchase that a dancer makes with her tips, and since it is quite possible she could under-report her income (by thousands, even tens of thousands) what can they really do to you? Granted, what you said about not being able to prove that you did NOT earn as much money as the IRS claims if most of your purchases were made with cash is true, isn't the principle that you are not guilty until proven guilty true as well?
In point of fact, where the IRS is concerned the answer is unfortunately a big fat NO ! What the IRS can really do ( and actually did to some dancers I know ) is to deem the dancer's self-generated reported income data as lacking 'credibility', to arrive at a new 'estimate' as to the actual level of earnings which the dancer must have had in order to jive with her local cost of living - lifestyle - credit card cash flow - purchases of big ticket items like cars or houses etc., to send the dancer a 'bill' for the taxes supposedly owed on this higher level of 'estimated' income (plus penalties and interest), and to then freeze / attach the dancer's 'assets' i.e. bank / investment accounts if the dancer does not pony up the amount of money that the IRS 'billed' her for.
(snip)"Ron Paul: Because, you know, traditionally, under common law, and our system has always assumed that we’re innocent until proven guilty, and yet when it comes to regulations, first we allow the Executive Branch to legislate as well as the court, but in the administrative courts, we’re assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.
You’re in charge of the IRS. The IRS does this. So this is some place where if there were a reasonable respect for the rule of law, then we can change that tone and assume that the taxpayer or the person that is on the receiving end of these regulations say, “Hey, at least, now is the burden of proof is on the government to prove that somebody broke these regulations”, and yet look at what we’re doing endlessly, and yet I see that as the real culprit in all this because we’re assuming the citizen is guilty. "(snip)
(snip)"Ron Paul: Well, any way. I mean any time a regulator comes in and says that you’re guilty of something, why doesn’t the government have to prove he’s guilty, why can’t we assume –
Tim Geithner: Guilty of a criminal violation or of anything?
Ron Paul: Civil or criminal. Why not? I mean that’s a principal that has been around for more than a thousand years, at least 800 years.
Tim Geithner: I’m neither a regulator nor a lawyer, unfortunately. So I’m not sure I can give you adequate answers to that, but I’d be happy to think about it a little bit and get back to you with a view on –
Ron Paul: Well, I don’t think it’s complicated to think about the principle of innocent until proven guilty. How about the IRS? Can’t you advise the IRS and say, “don’t assume anything until you prove these guys did something wrong before we prosecute them and say that they owe $500,000.” I mean –
Tim Geithner: Well, Mr. Chairman, again, if this is about the IRS, I’d be happy to come talk to you about that and try to –
Barney Frank: The gentleman’s time has expired. "(snip)
from
Somebody with more law experience can verify the real world situation ... but from personal observation it seems to be this. If a dancer is hit with a 'bill' for additional taxes (plus penalties and interest) based on an IRS conclusion that her self-generated income data is lacking in 'credibility' thus prompting a higher IRS estimate of actual income ( with additional tax liability), there are three courses of action available ...
A) - pay the IRS the money it wants and forget about the matter
B) - pay the IRS the money it wants, retain a tax attorney, and attempt to dispute the issue in IRS tax court in hopes of a favorable ruling followed by a refund of the money previously paid to the IRS.
C) - don't pay the IRS the money it wants, deal with the IRS subsequently 'freezing' bank accounts and investment accounts, retain a tax attorney, first attempt to get the IRS freezes lifted, and next attempt to dispute the issue in IRS tax court.
I would also point out that the degree of co-operation with the IRS ( or lack thereof ) typically has a direct bearing on the thorougness / negotiability of audits ( i.e. the legitimacy of business expense tax deductions ), as well as the number of years that the IRS decides to 'go back' in hopes of generating additional 'bills' for unpaid taxes on higher IRS estimated earnings levels versus dancer reported income levels for previous years.
And while I haven't asked permission from any of the dancers who were involved in this situation, without giving too many details I will tell you how one particular incident went down. A manhattan dancer purchased a new 'luxury' car. The state motor vehicle bureau automatically reported the purchase to the IRS. The IRS looked at the Manhattan cost of living plus the size of the car loan plus the credit card cash flows plus the cash flows into bank accounts and investment accounts - compared them to the dancer's previous year tax returns - and decided that there was a reasonable probability of unreported income. The IRS then sent an agent to check out the Manhattan strip club where the dancer had worked ... who arrived at a conclusion that dancers were earning FAR more money than this dancer had reported on her tax return. The IRS then sent her a 'deficiency' notice, which the dancer chose not to pay. As a consequence, the dancer's accounts were frozen. She wound up entering into a settlement agreement with the IRS to avoid the expense of litigation, and pursuant to that agreement paid an additional $30,000 or so in income taxes to cover 'inflated' IRS earnings estimates for the previous 3 years. As a result, she wound up having to sell her newly purchased 'luxury' car.
~
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Melonie
With regard to you example, the important question is, was the dancer in question "under reporting her income" ??? If she was not how did she manage to live in her ZIP code and have all that cash flow and afford that luxury car on the income she reported? If it costs 40 grand a year to rent where you live and you have 30 grand a year going through your accounts and are making 20 grand a year in payments on a BMW you can't do that on a self reported income of 50 grand a year.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of dancers, waitresses, people that work in cash or mostly cash businesses under report their income, they just do, be it 10% or 70% that is just a matter of degree. They also enable others to under report their income by paying them cash and then "pretending" they never made that money to begin with IE the great "tipouts" debate.
"they" will give a million and one reasons/excuses/justifactions as to why they are for some reason "entitled" to earn tax free money "it's so hard" etc etc etc but as someone who has earned nothing but W-2 income all my life and we are the majority of citizens I have no sympathy for all these tax cheats who because of technology that didn't exist 20 years ago no have a hard time getting away with making 100 grand a year and claiming that they make 20 or as many dancers did for years and years 0.
"I live with my boyfriend and he pays all my bills."
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
as far as laurisa's statement about them not being able to track every purchase made in cash, i'm sorry to say it's pretty damn close.you know those "advantage" cards that every grocery/drug store (except aldi's) requires customers to have to get the deals? those track what you spend there. let's face it, big brother is watching.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Quote:
The simple fact is that the vast majority of dancers, waitresses, people that work in cash or mostly cash businesses under report their income, they just do, be it 10% or 70% that is just a matter of degree. They also enable others to under report their income by paying them cash and then "pretending" they never made that money to begin with
I want to make sure that we're not mixing separate points here. It is one issue to consider 'net' reporting of dancer income where every $20 private dance ( or whatever ) is automatically accompanied by a mandatory $5 ( or whatever ) 'cut' to the club as $15 in 'net' earnings - versus the separate reporting of $20 in 'gross' income as well as $5 in 'VIP room rental' business expense paid out to the club. It is another issue to consider other 'mandatory' nightly tipout expenditures to DJ's, to bouncers etc. who are officially different business entities from the club itself. In essence, mandatory payments to the club are always legitimate business expense tax deductions ... whereas so-called 'mandatory' payments ( which the club actually has no legal authority to mandate ) to third party business entities like DJ's and bouncers may or may not be considered legitimate business expense tax deductions by the IRS ( based on details discussed in previous posts ).
The potential issue of workers in cash businesses deliberately under-reporting their incomes is a whole 'nuther subject. In no case have I ever made Dollar Den posts encouraging or condoning this, and there is a clear disclaimer at the top of the Dollar Den forum to that effect. However, it would be naive to think that some cases do actually exist in the real world.
However, where my example was concerned, to the best of my knowledge there wasn't any deliberate underreporting of income by the particular dancer. As was the case for the woman referenced in the original post, this dancer had minimized her actual cost of living by sharing rent / utility bills with several roommates ( in this particular case other dancers ) and by living in a comparatively inexpensive section of the city. This probably 'freed up' somewhere around $1000 per month = $12,000 per year that would otherwise have been spent to maintain an apartment for herself living alone. However, when crunching database statistics, the IRS had no way of knowing of the dancer's shared living arrangements ... in exactly the same way that the IRS had no way of knowing that the woman in the original post was taking advantage of shared living arrangements with her parents. All that was apparently necessary to attract IRS suspicion was for the dancer to be working in a 'cash' business, and to have chosen to spend some portion of that $12,000 in 'avoided' costs of living to purchase a nice new car and/or some 'luxury' items with her credit card !
So even if the dancer in my example had accurately reported 100% of her dancing income, as discussed in the Ron Paul / Tim Geithner congressional testimony, the minute that IRS suspicion was aroused the dancer was basically treated as being guilty until proven innocent. And with self-generated business records lacking 100% corroboration via 1099's or W2's, the dancer had no way to 'prove her innocence'. Thus when the IRS concocted a new 'estimate' of what the dancer's actual income 'must have been' in order to jive with their cost of living database plus actual dancer cash flows plus observed club earnings potential, and then attempted to collect additional income taxes from the dancer based on the higher new 'estimate' of her income, she had no way to prove in an IRS tax court that she didn't in fact earn the 'estimated' amount. In any 'word of a stripper' versus the 'word of a gov't official' situation, it is a given that the stripper will NOT be given the benefit of the doubt.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
river
as far as laurisa's statement about them not being able to track every purchase made in cash, i'm sorry to say it's pretty damn close.you know those "advantage" cards that every grocery/drug store (except aldi's) requires customers to have to get the deals? those track what you spend there. let's face it, big brother is watching.
Luckily I shop at Aldi's! And whose to say that you didn't sign up with a fake name or address?
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
^^^ well, where all of the 'chain' clubs and 'corporate' clubs are concerned at least, the US Patriot Act requires that the club check ID of prospective workers to determine that they are legally able to work in the USA. This typically means showing a driver's license and a social security card. And while it is of course possible to 'fake' such ID, it takes a deliberate effort to do so. Not to mention that doing so would constitute tax fraud, as well as a crime under other laws !
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
I meant for the grocery store discount cards!
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
you can be prosecuted for fraud there, as well, for different reasons. the joy of selective enforcement. the government can totally come after everyone who uses a fake address and name for grocery store accounts, if they feel like making examples.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Everything is illegal in the united states. Everything from distance to manner of dress. We don't have the largest per capita prison population for nothing. Makes one really think about "the brochure" and the reality of what America is.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
^^^ indeed ...
Quote:
"I live with my boyfriend and he pays all my bills."
Actually, in 'sugar daddy' situations, there is precedent that dancers having their 'bills paid' for them, dancers having frequent and/or expensive 'gifts' given to them etc., has been interpreted by the IRS as actually constituting 'payment for services rendered' ... i.e. additional taxable income ! In fact I personally know of a case where a dancer was set up in a leased apartment by a 'sugar daddy', where the amount paid for her rent was considered to be additional income for the dancer !
~
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
... and you can bet that the motivation for the NYC district attorney's desire to start an investigation re Tiger Woods has absolutely nothing to do with potential charges against Woods ... but a whole lot to do with collecting a whole bunch of additional NYC ( and NY state and IRS federal ) income taxes as the result of the 'paper trail' investigation subpoena-ing Michelle Braun's 'escort agency' financial records.
(snip)"Woods spent upwards of $60,000 for high-priced escorts from former madam Michelle Braun, the New York Post reported Friday.
Braun told the paper that between 2006 and 2007, Woods paid for at least four dates with escorts from her roster. For one “pillow-lipped” Manhattan model named Loredana, the married billionaire paid $15,000 for a single "date," Braun said.
If Braun's allegations are true, the golf-great could be in serious legal trouble, New York City-based attorney Tom Kenniff tells FoxNews.com
“He could be charged with patronizing a prostitute, a misdemeanor in New York,” Kennif said. “Depending on the statute of limitations, if there are witnesses swearing out statements, and there is a money trail that can be corroborated, it’s a reasonable likelihood” that Woods could be charged.
If convicted, Woods could face up to a year in jail, Kennif said.
Alicia Maxey Greene, a spokeswoman for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, declined FoxNews.com’s request for comment about whether Woods could be charged, or about any potential investigation.
Loredana, who admits to working for Braun and confirms that she did indeed accompany Woods on dates in Manhattan, described him as being a “really nice person” who had “manners.”
The former Playboy “Cyber-Girl” said Woods purchased gifts for her, including a ring, diamond studs and a watch, the paper reports. "(snip)
It's highly 'telling' that the press release should make specific references to a financial paper trail leading to the escort agency, as well as to the purchase of expensive 'gifts' for escorts !
The significant point here is that is not just the IRS but also state and city tax agencies that have added staff and beefed up investigative / enforcement capabilities in an attempt to latch onto as much additional tax revenue as possible in hopes of reducing state and city budget deficits. And like the IRS they understand that cash businesses, particularly Adult businesses, offer one of the highest ratios of additional tax dollars collected versus the cost of investigative effort.
This is even more true when the IRS, state, or local tax authority can 'piggyback' on basic legal groundwork performed ( and paid for ) by other gov't agencies ... or in this case essentially being handed full access to the escort service's financial records as a side effect of a district attorney's investigation without any tax agency first having to 'prove' anything in the way of financial / tax payment wrongdoing. They are then free to start applying 'spending side' analysis i.e. Tiger Woods' alleged payments for escorts, as a basis for extrapolation ! And once the taxmen get a look at those escort service financial records, it's a distinct possibility that particular record entries could lead to an expanded investigation ... that in turn could very well lead to upscale Manhattan strip clubs.
-
Re: Example of new IRS use of 'spending' side / 'local cost of living' data ...
Melonie
I was refferring to times back in the day, the 80's and 90's. there were plenty of guys making big bucks in a lot of industries that no longer exist today and they could more than afford to have a hot looking blonde live in GF and pay all the bills. If he was a boob guy like me and his ideal is your twin sister then he probably bought her a few bood jobs.
So she looks like Pam Andreson or Anna Nicole Smith or yes Melonie Charm!
To be clear we are talking about a "non-dancer" but because the IRS did not have all the tools it does today and clubs doing 1099's was unheard of, the only "tool the IRS had was to search for bank accounts, titles were not reported, the "spending side" did not exist so there could have been and in fact were plenty of hot looking big breasted blondes who if they lived in states/cities that required no type of "license" IE "sherrifs card" and pre-Patriot act could simply present a probably fake ID that the clubs actually kept no record of who were pulling down well in excess of 100K a year who to all the world looked like just another hot looking GF/wife and because the IRS could not with out launching a VERY man power intenstive "investagation" even begin to prove other wise. So the end result is they blended in perfectley could make the claim "I live with my boyfriend and he pays all my bills" and the IRS could not prove they were not.
As I said before, as someone who has earned W-2 wages all my life and then therefore didn't get to earn "tax free money" it does not bother me one little bit that these days all those tax cheats, be they dancers, waitresses at high end restruants or dealers and waitresses at casinos that used to earn maybe way more than me and declared none of it and be able to with little chance of being caught are just one mouse click away from maybe going to federal prison or at least paying large fines on top of there "back taxes'.