OWE THE IRS? YOUR CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS WILL BE REVOKED!

[AdventureAdams]

I knew I smelled the pungent stink of sensationalism.

[Whirlaway]

The truth from your own article Timmyboy (3rd paragraph)...........

"Here's how it would work. If someone owed more than $50,000 in back taxes, the IRS would be able to send their name over to the passport office for suspension, provided that the IRS already either filed a public lien or a assessed a levy for the outstanding balance."

It confirms exactly how the original post described the legislation. If you are ok with the IRS being able to prevent unconvicted citizens from traveling freely, then you hold some scary ideas of what America and the Constitution are! A tax lien means someone owe's a debt. Fine, but to deny that person the right to travel freely - without a court order ????

What other rights are you OK with the IRS taking away to secure one's debt? How about a woman's right to an abortion? She owes the IRS some money - BAM no abortion. How about healthcare?

The right to travel freely is the most basic of rights. More so than the twisted right to an abortion or the vague right to government funded health care!


But of course the Democrat Party constitutents make up most of the 51% who never pay any taxes; so what the fuck !

Originally Posted by timpage

Here's the truth regarding the bill, versus Whirlynuts' paranoid ravings:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ssport/255940/

IRS has to have filed a public lien or issued a levy. That goes way past the IRS simply sending you a letter telling you that you owe some back taxes.

Get back to your National Enquirer Whirlynuts and dig up some more fun paranoid fantasy stuff!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by timpage

Here's the truth regarding the bill, versus Whirlynuts' paranoid ravings:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...ssport/255940/

IRS has to have filed a public lien or issued a levy. That goes way past the IRS simply sending you a letter telling you that you owe some back taxes.

Get back to your National Enquirer Whirlynuts and dig up some more fun paranoid fantasy stuff!

I can assure you that I am not into "paranoid fantasy stuff", but I do have some concerns here.

For one, consider this excerpt from the story linked by timpage:

Here's how it would work. If someone owed more than $50,000 in back taxes, the IRS would be able to send their name over to the passport office for suspension, provided that the IRS already either filed a public lien or a assessed a levy for the outstanding balance. The bill does provide a few exceptions though. For example, if a person has set up a payment plan (that they're paying in a timely manner), is legitimately disputing the debt, or has an emergency situation or humanitarian reason and must travel internationally, they may be able to leave for a limited time despite their unpaid taxes.

(End of excerpt.)

Can't the IRS "assess a levy" for what they claim is an "outstanding balance" prior to due process possibly resulting in a finding that the subject taxpayer does not in fact owe the amount claimed by the IRS? And while someone is "legitimately disputing the debt", just who decides, and on what basis, what constitutes a reasonable definition of a "limited time?"

Also, please take a look at this excerpt:

Professor Daniel Shaviro, a tax policy expert at New York University School of Law, recognizes that there is a legitimate policy goal at play in the proposed travel restrictions: making sure someone stays in the country and really pays the taxes they owe. After all, he says, someone who owes a huge amount in taxes might present a flight risk. He does, however, worry about the possibility that the passport rules could be misused, say, to harass specific individuals whom government officials dislike.

(End of excerpt.)

Doesn't the possibility that loose interpretation of the rules might encourage overreaching, zealous bureaucrats to harass specific individuals trouble anyone?

I understand that the government needs tools with which to effectively deal with tax scofflaws and outright deadbeats.

But shouldn't legislation be crafted in such a way as to eliminate all concerns that it could create more usurpations of civil liberties?

[Whirlaway]

It worries me...................and it should worry everyone who pays taxes!

But if I were one of the freeloaders, I would be all in favor of this. Afterall, the beast that prints the checks and provides the benefits needs to be fed.!

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Doesn't the possibility that loose interpretation of the rules might encourage overreaching, zealous bureaucrats to harass specific individuals trouble anyone?

I understand that the government needs tools with which to effectively deal with tax scofflaws and outright deadbeats.

But shouldn't legislation be crafted in such a way as to eliminate all concerns that it could create more usurpations of civil liberties?

[Jackie S]

And the beast has an insatiable appetite.

[AdventureAdams]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It worries me...................and it should worry everyone who pays taxes!

But if I were one of the freeloaders, I would be all in favor of this. Afterall, the beast that prints the checks and provides the benefits needs to be fed.!

It should worry everyone who doesn't pay their taxes. Pay Your Taxes or else you will be denied exotic tropical retreats abroad!!

[CJ7]

allows the State Department to "deny, revoke or limit" passport rights for any taxpayers with "serious delinquencies.

($50,000.00 and above)

[Whirlaway]

I say deny those same taxpayers any and all benefits of citizenship; except of course those required to go back and forth to work....no internet (government funded) no healthcare (government funded), no abortions (government funded), no tv/radio (government airways), yada yada.......

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The truth from your own article Timmyboy (3rd paragraph)...........

"Here's how it would work. If someone owed more than $50,000 in back taxes, the IRS would be able to send their name over to the passport office for suspension, provided that the IRS already either filed a public lien or a assessed a levy for the outstanding balance."

It confirms exactly how the original post described the legislation. If you are ok with the IRS being able to prevent unconvicted citizens from traveling freely, then you hold some scary ideas of what America and the Constitution are! A tax lien means someone owe's a debt. Fine, but to deny that person the right to travel freely - without a court order ????

What other rights are you OK with the IRS taking away to secure one's debt? How about a woman's right to an abortion? She owes the IRS some money - BAM no abortion. How about healthcare?

The right to travel freely is the most basic of rights. More so than the twisted right to an abortion or the vague right to government funded health care!


But of course the Democrat Party constitutents make up most of the 51% who never pay any taxes; so what the fuck !

Did the black helicopters beam you aboard and remove your brain Whirly? Or are you a victim of Agenda 21 brainwashing?

What does abortion and healthcare have to do with a law designed to prevent tax cheats from leaving the country without paying their taxes?

It always amazes me how idiots like you can only get excited about shit that effects rich people. Typical repuke. Let's make sure the rich tax cheats who owe the gov more than $50k in taxes don't get mistreated!

[Whirlaway]

are you disputing there were black helicopter flying over Chicago; because everyone else recognizes that they were flying - advance training operations for the upcoming UN meeting in Chicago !

Don't look like a dope and deny the facts Timmyboy.

You are a dope; it isn't about rich or poor, black or white, or however you view the world in your us vs. them global view.....

For Conservatives it is about the size and role of the Federal Government.

Again, don't be a dope and talk about things you don't understand.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by timpage

Let's make sure the rich tax cheats who owe the gov more than $50k in taxes don't get mistreated!

Tim, would you like to take a stab at addressing the concerns I expressed in post #33, or do you just think zealous government employees ought to have a green light to do whatever they please?

I think I described a couple of pretty legitimate potential problems, and I can assure you that I am not (and never intended to be) a "tax cheat."

[Whirlaway]

What does taking away someone's right to travel have to do with forcing them to pay up?

About as much, or less than government paid benefits..............

Originally Posted by timpage

What does abortion and healthcare have to do with a law designed to prevent tax cheats from leaving the country without paying their taxes?

!

[CuteOldGuy]

Two things. First, you can owe the IRS $50K+ without being a tax cheat. Second, I despise the IRS and the income tax system, as regular viewers of this board know.

That being said, if a person is behind in their taxes, I have no problem with the government restricting a person's passport. I'd have a problem with restricting travel within the US, but it doesn't seem outrageous to expect your tax bill to be paid if you want certain privileges. I don't like the law, but it is still the law. If a person has a repayment plan in effect, or is otherwise cooperating with the IRS to satisfy the amount due, I'd allow exceptions for that. Or if the amount in controversy is being challenged in Tax Court. Otherwise, I think it is within the purview of the IRS to restrict passports for non-payment of taxes.

[Sexyeccentric1]

Originally Posted by timpage

Earth to Whirlygig: the IRS has always had special powers. There's no requirement of adjudication for them to freeze or levy your bank accounts, the 4th Amendment basically doesn't apply to the IRS and on and on. The country doesn't run without the money generated by IRS payments and collections so they get special treatment.

The purpose of the legislation is to prevent criminals who refuse to pay their taxes, like the rest of us do, from absconding from the US to other countries without extradition treaties.

Being the dumbass that you are, you may think it is a fine idea to let tax cheats run off to other countries. I disagree.

Originally Posted by ekim008

Hey whirrly it's simple--pay your fucking taxes you can travel.

LMAO at these post..right..!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Two things. First, you can owe the IRS $50K+ without being a tax cheat. Second, I despise the IRS and the income tax system, as regular viewers of this board know.

That being said, if a person is behind in their taxes, I have no problem with the government restricting a person's passport. I'd have a problem with restricting travel within the US, but it doesn't seem outrageous to expect your tax bill to be paid if you want certain privileges. I don't like the law, but it is still the law. If a person has a repayment plan in effect, or is otherwise cooperating with the IRS to satisfy the amount due, I'd allow exceptions for that. Or if the amount in controversy is being challenged in Tax Court. Otherwise, I think it is within the purview of the IRS to restrict passports for non-payment of taxes.

I have no problem with that if a delinquent taxpayer fails to answer a demand for payment, or is in default on balances clearly owed and there is no ongoing contact between the IRS and the taxpayer's counsel such that any potential dispute may be resolved in due course.

What I have a problem with is the possibility that the IRS, merely pursuant to "assessing a levy" for an amount they say you owe, can advise the passport office (or anyone else) that your travel privileges should be suspended. They can "assess a levy" even if they are completely wrong and unwilling to take the matter to Tax Court, as I found out from personal experience.

At the very least, I think the language in any possible legislation should be tightened up in such a manner that no one should have any concerns about these issues. Judging from the article timpage linked, I don't have much confidence that that's likely to be the case.

Of course, a lot of the crap shoveled out today is written in such a way that nobody has any idea what the hell it says. Just look at Dodd-Frank, for example.