I find this legislation (if in fact it's something that's going to be seriously pursued) outrageous, since apparently it provides for passport revocation in case the Treasury merely
alleges that someone owes back taxes, whether or not the issue is contested and proceeding through legal channels. Very often, the IRS is
simply wrong!
Here's an example from my own experience:
In the mid-1990s, I got one of those little computer-generated notices from the IRS informing me that I owed a rather large amount (to me, anyway) of money for the two previous tax years. The matter had to do with the calculation of depreciation on commercial real estate properties.
My CPAs checked, double-checked, and told the IRS that
their calculations were wrong. The Treasury finally wrote back (after about two months), saying that I owed the money they previously demanded, plus more penalties and interest. I sought tax counsel and prepared to go to trial, but the Treasury decided not to pursue the case. Apparently someone halfway intelligent finally took a look at the matter and decided that the government had a poor case. Like almost everyone else, I want to make sure that I pay all the tax that I
legally owe, under the law and in compliance with the code, but no more.
Do you really think my traveling privileges should have been suspended prior to that dispute resolution?
Regarding Buffett, let's be clear about something -- and let's take a fair, reasoned look at what's going on here. I'm just as put off as anyone by the demagoguery shoveled by him and by those supporting the silly "Buffett Rule", which is obviously not a serious policy proposal, but please consider just a couple of points:
First of all, no one is alleging that Buffett himself owes any back taxes. The matter largely relates to a BRK subsidiary (NetJets) and the case is not clear at all.
I briefly explained the issue on April 10th in the first portion of this post:
http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=2391105&postcount=74
I know that this whole thing looks like hypocrisy on Buffett's part, or at least a delicious irony, but I would suggest that there's more here than initially meets the eye. BRK's counsel must feel that they have a pretty good case, else they would likely not want to risk substantial penalties and interest as well as all the adverse publicity a negative outcome would generate.
Please note also that Buffett has the fiduciary duty to look out for his shareholders. Remember, others own the majority of BRK-B common, and most are not wealthy investors. Large chunks of BRK-B common are held in people's 401(k) accounts, as well as by retirement funds whose beneficiaries are teachers, police officers, firefighters, etc.
Over the years, he has produced outstanding returns that will accrue to the benefit of many millions of people.
