Go Back   Fighting Illini Forums > General > Track 5 Chat

IRS Travel Ban: Revoking Citizenship By Stealth

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Apr 16, 2012, 06:04 PM   #1
NV Illini 74
NV Illini 74's Avatar
Posts: 5,279
http://www.infowars.com/irs-travel-b...ip-by-stealth/

Thanks to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a recently passed Senate bill, the suitably Orwellian entitled ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’, includes a provision that allows the federal government to revoke passports of Americans accused of owing back taxes.

“There is no requirement that the tax payer be guilty of or even charged with tax evasion, fraud, or any criminal offense — only that the citizen is alleged to owe the IRS back taxes of $50,000 or more,” reports the Daily Economist.


Back in the late 90's, when you "day-traded" stocks, the brokerage reported only the gross sales amounts to the IRS. You could easily have sales in the several millions of dollars, over the course of a year. If you requested an extension, sooner or later the IRS would send you a letter that calculated you owed them the top rate (>30%) of that gross proceeds number your brokerage was so kind to furnish them. This new law should make these kind of scenarios fun, don't you think?

Due process? Who needs it, right?

__________________
"I may not be as strong as I think," the old man said, "But I know many tricks and I have resolution."
NV Illini 74 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2012, 07:02 PM   #2
uiba99
Tiny Illini
uiba99's Avatar
Location: The basement of the Alamo
Posts: 1,716
Have to read this a bit more closely, but here is the paragraph in question.

Quote:
SEC. 40304. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN UNPAID TAXES.

(a) In General- Subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:



‘SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.

‘(a) In General- If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’.

‘(b) Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt- For purposes of this section, the term ‘seriously delinquent tax debt’ means an outstanding debt under this title for which a notice of lien has been filed in public records pursuant to section 6323 or a notice of levy has been filed pursuant to section 6331, except that such term does not include--

‘(1) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement under section 6159 or 7122, and

‘(2) a debt with respect to which collection is suspended because a collection due process hearing under section 6330, or relief under subsection (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015, is requested or pending.

‘(c) Adjustment for Inflation- In the case of a calendar year beginning after 2012, the dollar amount in subsection (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to--

‘(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by

‘(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting ‘calendar year 2011’ for ‘calendar year 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of $1,000.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

‘Sec. 7345. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain tax delinquencies.’.

(c) Authority for Information Sharing-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (l) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

‘(23) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF PASSPORT REVOCATION UNDER SECTION 7345-

‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall, upon receiving a certification described in section 7345, disclose to the Secretary of State return information with respect to a taxpayer who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section. Such return information shall be limited to--

‘(i) the taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, and

‘(ii) the amount of such seriously delinquent tax debt.

‘(B) RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Department of State for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, carrying out the requirements of section 4 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’.’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of such Code is amended by striking ‘or (22)’ each place it appears in subparagraph (F)(ii) and in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting ‘(22), or (23)’.

(d) Revocation Authorization- The Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’, is amended by adding at the end the following:



‘SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT.

‘(a) Ineligibility-

‘(1) ISSUANCE- Except as provided under subsection (b), upon receiving a certification described in section 7345 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may not issue a passport or passport card to any individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section.

‘(2) REVOCATION- The Secretary of State shall revoke a passport or passport card previously issued to any individual described in subparagraph (A).

‘(b) Exceptions-

‘(1) EMERGENCY AND HUMANITARIAN SITUATIONS- Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of State may issue a passport or passport card, in emergency circumstances or for humanitarian reasons, to an individual described in subsection (a)(1).

‘(2) LIMITATION FOR RETURN TO UNITED STATES- Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of State, before revocation, may--

‘(A) limit a previously issued passport or passport card only for return travel to the United States; or

‘(B) issue a limited passport or passport card that only permits return travel to the United States.’.

(e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 1, 2013.

__________________
"The danger is all around us now. Hatred is rising, yet all sides feel more virtuous. We’re asleep to the threat. We can have the most sophisticated Constitution, a brilliant system of checks and balances and a Bill of Rights to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority — yet none of it can stand against the power of hatred."
Fr. John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre Dame

Last edited by uiba99; Apr 16, 2012 at 07:06 PM.
uiba99 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2012, 07:12 PM   #3
NV Illini 74
NV Illini 74's Avatar
Posts: 5,279
Here is what the link to The Economist says:

Quote:
Senate Bill 1813 (Highway trust fund), which was passed by the Senate last week and is now pending in the House of Representatives contains a provision that would allow the IRS to order the State Department to refuse to grant, refuse to renew, revoke or restrict the passport of any US citizen which the IRS certifies owes the IRS $50,000 or more in unpaid taxes. There is no requirement that the tax payer be guilty of or even charged with tax evasion, fraud, or any criminal offense - only that the citizen is alleged to owe the IRS back taxes of $50,000 or more.
http://www.thedailyeconomist.com/201...pend-your.html

Was it Senate Bill 1813 that you searched?

I find it apalling that a Federal Highway Trust Fund bill (eg for our roads) would have some absolutely unrelated nonsense like this IRS Back Taxes drivel attached to it.

__________________
"I may not be as strong as I think," the old man said, "But I know many tricks and I have resolution."
NV Illini 74 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2012, 08:20 PM   #4
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,842
I believe that in Tax Court you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. It's ass-backwards of the criminal court system.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2012, 08:39 PM   #5
illinirazorback
Banned
Location: Savoy, IL
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonIllini View Post
I believe that in Tax Court you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. It's ass-backwards of the criminal court system.
Seems very American.

Funny how everybody wants to reform this or that, but the tax code is not one of them.
illinirazorback is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 16, 2012, 09:31 PM   #6
NV Illini 74
NV Illini 74's Avatar
Posts: 5,279
One problem: what constraints are there on the IRS Commissioner that preclude him from arbitrarily "Certifying" a taxpayer has a seriously delinquent tax debt? None whatsoever.

Another problem: current IRS law states that you have until 3 years from your extension to file a return and get your REFUND. eg: 2008 returns claiming refunds are due Oct 15, 2012, assuming you filed your 6 month automatic extension. Meanwhile, even if you informed the IRS that your return is forthcoming, and you fully expect a REFUND, the IRS may act at it's own whim to garnish your wages, files liens against your property, and create other similar mayhem in your financial life. Seems to me that if you goof and find out you owe the IRS, THEN the IRS should be allowed to collect, not before.

Another problem: why is the IRS granted a 3 year limit on you claiming a refund, when the IRS claims a 7 year period FROM THE DATE YOU FILE, to come back at you for an audit? IE: If you file your 2008 taxes on Oct 15, 2012 and claim a refund, and the IRS pays you, the IRS can still come back at you through AT LEAST Oct 15, 2019!! They limit us to 3 years to getting our act together, but they allow themselves 7 years beyond that?! Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?

Hence, having liens, garnishments, etc is not necessarily an indicator that you even owe the IRS anything at all. It only indicates that you have not played their game as they defined it.

Who gave them our ball to claim as their own, anyhow?!

__________________
"I may not be as strong as I think," the old man said, "But I know many tricks and I have resolution."
NV Illini 74 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2012, 05:43 AM   #7
IntenselyOrange
Posts: 7,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonIllini View Post
I believe that in Tax Court you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent. It's ass-backwards of the criminal court system.
Yep. It is evidence that the only thing that really matters in the eyes of our government is their ability to take our money. The politics we read about involves only fights over what to do with the money that they have taken.
IntenselyOrange is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2012, 08:03 AM   #8
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by NV Illini 74 View Post
Hence, having liens, garnishments, etc is not necessarily an indicator that you even owe the IRS anything at all. It only indicates that you have not played their game as they defined it.

Who gave them our ball to claim as their own, anyhow?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by IntenselyOrange View Post
Yep. It is evidence that the only thing that really matters in the eyes of our government is their ability to take our money. The politics we read about involves only fights over what to do with the money that they have taken.
Foolish mortals. Don't you understand that it is THEIR money. You are just being allowed to borrow it for a time and they can take it away anytime they want.

You only think you're free but you aren't.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2012, 03:48 PM   #9
ilphotog
The camera never lies
ilphotog's Avatar
Location: Champaign
Posts: 6,348
What if you do not have a passport?
ilphotog is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2012, 04:25 PM   #10
NV Illini 74
NV Illini 74's Avatar
Posts: 5,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilphotog View Post
What if you do not have a passport?
Maybe you never have to pay taxes!

__________________
"I may not be as strong as I think," the old man said, "But I know many tricks and I have resolution."
NV Illini 74 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 19, 2012, 04:48 PM   #11
uiba99
Tiny Illini
uiba99's Avatar
Location: The basement of the Alamo
Posts: 1,716
It just occurred to me that the rationale behind this piece of legislation is that if someone owes a huge amount of back taxes, and they have resources available to them, they might want to flee the country in order to avoid payment and prosecution. Perhaps that is the legislative intent. I have no idea. I really want more information on how this rider got tacked onto a transportation bill in the first place.

On a somewhat related note, I do have to give the State Department props. I sent them my expired passport on March 30 and they issued me a new one on April 11. They then returned the expired one to me today (I'm a goof; I had no idea they returned them). The government proves its efficiency....just this one time.

And by the way, with one innocuous exception, I have always paid my taxes promptly.

__________________
"The danger is all around us now. Hatred is rising, yet all sides feel more virtuous. We’re asleep to the threat. We can have the most sophisticated Constitution, a brilliant system of checks and balances and a Bill of Rights to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority — yet none of it can stand against the power of hatred."
Fr. John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre Dame
uiba99 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 12:21 PM   #12
johncu
johncu's Avatar
Location: Central IL
Posts: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiba99 View Post
It just occurred to me that the rationale behind this piece of legislation is that if someone owes a huge amount of back taxes, and they have resources available to them, they might want to flee the country in order to avoid payment and prosecution. Perhaps that is the legislative intent. I have no idea. I really want more information on how this rider got tacked onto a transportation bill in the first place.

On a somewhat related note, I do have to give the State Department props. I sent them my expired passport on March 30 and they issued me a new one on April 11. They then returned the expired one to me today (I'm a goof; I had no idea they returned them). The government proves its efficiency....just this one time.

And by the way, with one innocuous exception, I have always paid my taxes promptly.
The State Department can refuse to renew passports when requested by another agency under existing rules. And $50,000 in back taxes plus such a request from the IRS could already trigger such a hold, according to the FCR. They don't seem to be using it, which is why they may need additional instructions.

A GAO investigation found that State's habit of not checking passport applicants for taxes owed costs the US Treasury more than $6 billion per year.

A similar trigger exists (fcr) for Child Support scofflaws, at just $5,000. So my heart also goes out to Deadbeat Dads (who by the way also had due process) to the same degree as our Tax Freeloaders . . . :rolleyes:
johncu is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 01:08 PM   #13
illinirazorback
Banned
Location: Savoy, IL
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncu View Post
The State Department can refuse to renew passports when requested by another agency under existing rules. And $50,000 in back taxes plus such a request from the IRS could already trigger such a hold, according to the FCR. They don't seem to be using it, which is why they may need additional instructions.

A GAO investigation found that State's habit of not checking passport applicants for taxes owed costs the US Treasury more than $6 billion per year.

A similar trigger exists (fcr) for Child Support scofflaws, at just $5,000. So my heart also goes out to Deadbeat Dads (who by the way also had due process) to the same degree as our Tax Freeloaders . . . :rolleyes:
Once again, you have completely missed the point.
illinirazorback is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 01:11 PM   #14
uiba99
Tiny Illini
uiba99's Avatar
Location: The basement of the Alamo
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinirazorback View Post
Once again, you have completely missed the point.
Not to start an argument (because I don't think you and I disagree too much on this point), but I was reading my passport the other day after I signed it. Turns out it is the property of the United States Government and is subject to forfeiture at any time. I assume that makes it a lot easier for them to pass laws with regard to under what circumstances it can be forfeited.

Oh, the things we learn when we actually read the fine print.

__________________
"The danger is all around us now. Hatred is rising, yet all sides feel more virtuous. We’re asleep to the threat. We can have the most sophisticated Constitution, a brilliant system of checks and balances and a Bill of Rights to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority — yet none of it can stand against the power of hatred."
Fr. John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre Dame
uiba99 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 01:28 PM   #15
illinirazorback
Banned
Location: Savoy, IL
Posts: 3,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by uiba99 View Post
Not to start an argument (because I don't think you and I disagree too much on this point), but I was reading my passport the other day after I signed it. Turns out it is the property of the United States Government and is subject to forfeiture at any time. I assume that makes it a lot easier for them to pass laws with regard to under what circumstances it can be forfeited.

Oh, the things we learn when we actually read the fine print.
Well, the whole point of the argument as far as I'm concerned is how and why is the IRS allowed to do this or anything else to you without due process? Yes, I know it happens all the time and "It's just the way it is", but I don't see how that makes it right.
illinirazorback is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 01:56 PM   #16
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by johncu View Post
The State Department can refuse to renew passports when requested by another agency under existing rules. And $50,000 in back taxes plus such a request from the IRS could already trigger such a hold, according to the FCR. They don't seem to be using it, which is why they may need additional instructions.

A GAO investigation found that State's habit of not checking passport applicants for taxes owed costs the US Treasury more than $6 billion per year.

A similar trigger exists (fcr) for Child Support scofflaws, at just $5,000. So my heart also goes out to Deadbeat Dads (who by the way also had due process) to the same degree as our Tax Freeloaders . . . :rolleyes:
Can you explain the concordance between Child Support and the IRS claiming you owe back taxes. Specifically how are those both showing due process under the bill that would allow the IRS to unilaterally declare you delinquent before undergoing tax court proceedings?

My undestanding of child support is that these are court ordered payments after a hearing establishing the facts of a case.

Tax rules are far different. It is fairly easy for the IRS to make a claim of taxes owed. It is difficult to disprove this. Further if I understand this correctly, the passport can be withheld on the say-so of the IRS even before a tax court could adjudicate whether there is any money owed or not. And a tax court assumes guilt rather than innocence as in a criminal court.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 03:35 PM   #17
uiba99
Tiny Illini
uiba99's Avatar
Location: The basement of the Alamo
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinirazorback View Post
Well, the whole point of the argument as far as I'm concerned is how and why is the IRS allowed to do this or anything else to you without due process? Yes, I know it happens all the time and "It's just the way it is", but I don't see how that makes it right.
I suppose the argument is that despite the fact that we are a free society, we give up certain rights in order to have the proper documentation to leave the country. I'm not sure how that makes any sense, but all countries have rules as to who can or cannot cross their borders and what is required in order to do so.

I can see both sides of the argument. The federalist in me is warring with the libertarian in me, and not just with regard to this political issue. It's kind of like living in one of those old Frosted Mini-Wheats ads. Points if you get the reference. Dayton, I expect you to Google it if you don't. :laugh:

What I also find interesting about this debate and so many others is that the mainstream media is so busy talking about Kardashians, which presidential candidates have eaten dog meat or driven across the border with a dog strapped to the top of their car, or which celebrities are going to croak next instead of real, concrete, genuine concerns about the bills being proposed in Congress and/or signed by the President. THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE IN THE PUBLIC FORUM.

I'm done yelling now.

__________________
"The danger is all around us now. Hatred is rising, yet all sides feel more virtuous. We’re asleep to the threat. We can have the most sophisticated Constitution, a brilliant system of checks and balances and a Bill of Rights to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority — yet none of it can stand against the power of hatred."
Fr. John I. Jenkins, President, University of Notre Dame
uiba99 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 05:19 PM   #18
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,842
I remember the commercial uiba.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Apr 24, 2012, 06:21 PM   #19
NV Illini 74
NV Illini 74's Avatar
Posts: 5,279
Quote:
Tax rules are far different. It is fairly easy for the IRS to make a claim of taxes owed. It is difficult to disprove this. Further if I understand this correctly, the passport can be withheld on the say-so of the IRS even before a tax court could adjudicate whether there is any money owed or not. And a tax court assumes guilt rather than innocence as in a criminal court.
Exactly so.

Quote:
What I also find interesting about this debate and so many others is that the mainstream media is so busy talking about Kardashians, which presidential candidates have eaten dog meat or driven across the border with a dog strapped to the top of their car, or which celebrities are going to croak next instead of real, concrete, genuine concerns about the bills being proposed in Congress and/or signed by the President. THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE IN THE PUBLIC FORUM.
I propose that Las Vegas assist bringing these bills into the public forum by laying odds on things such as:
- over/under on how many pols admit to never having read the bill
- over/under on estimated costs provided by the bill's authors vs OMB
- number of times OMB raises their cost estimates in first 12 months
- (insert your fun metric here)
- etc

__________________
"I may not be as strong as I think," the old man said, "But I know many tricks and I have resolution."
NV Illini 74 is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


« Previous Thread | General Chat | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

Forum Jump