EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Fewer Large Corporations Audited by IRS
WASHINGTON -- The tax audit rates of the largest companies are less than half what they were 20 years ago while more small and mid-size businesses are coming under scrutiny, according to an organization that monitors the Internal Revenue Service.
The Syracuse University-based Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse described what it said was a ''historic collapse'' in audits for corporations holding assets of $250 million or more. About 26 percent of them were audited in the 2007 budget year compared with 34 percent in 2006 and 43 percent in 2005.
The IRS did not dispute the numbers, based on agency data. But it strongly disagreed with suggestions it was easing oversight of the biggest corporations.
Enforcement revenues from large companies rose by one-third in 2007 from the previous year, from $10.6 billion to $14.2 billion, said IRS Deputy Commissioner Barry Shott, who heads the Large and Mid-Size Business Division.
While the number of examinations has declined, ''what we are doing is focusing our resources better on where the noncompliance is,'' Shott said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Shott said the focus in recent years has been on tax shelters and `extraordinarily complicated'' partnerships and S corporations where shareholders, rather than the company, must report income or losses. Last year the IRS examined 17,700 S corporations, compared with 14,000 the previous year, and 12,200 partnerships, compared with 9,800.
But the TRAC report concluded that the IRS also was concentrating on regular small and mid-sized companies to boost audit numbers.
''Moving the focus of the corporate auditors away from the large corporations and toward the smaller ones has been quite effective when it came to increasing the overall number of these kinds of audits but actually was counterproductive in financial terms,'' the researchers said.
The new IRS commissioner, Douglas Shulman, said in a response that he intends to make ''targeting noncompliance with our tax laws ... a high priority.''
According to IRS statistics, 15 percent, or 4,473, of companies with $10 million to $50 million in assets were examined in 2007. That compares with 12.3 percent, or 3,535 companies, that were audited in 2005.
In the same two years, the percentage of audits of corporations in the $50 million to $100 million range fell from 16.4 percent to 11.4 percent. For corporations in the $100 million to $250 million range, the percentage dropped from 17.5 percent to 12.1 percent .
Among the largest corporations above $250 million in assets, 3,424 were audited in 2007, down from a peak of 4,859 in 2005.
TRAC also questioned the financial benefits of the shift. The group said that last year the government uncovered $682 in additional recommended taxes for every revenue agent hour spent auditing the smallest corporations, compared with $7,498 in additional taxes for audits of the largest corporations.
Dean Zerbe, national managing director for Houston-based alliantgroup, which provides tax services for medium-sized companies, said his fear was that ''in the IRS' zeal to show Congress improved numbers in corporate audit, it is America's small and medium businesses that are taking it on the chin.''
Shulman told the Senate Finance Committee last week that audits of businesses in general rose from 52,000 in 2006 to 59,500 in 2007.
He acknowledged that audits of the largest corporations were down. But he said that ''in times of flat budgets, the agency cannot increase activity across the board, but must address the areas where there is growth and potential risk.''
Shott also cited a new program where larger companies work with the IRS during the year so there will not be disputes at tax-filing season. Participants in this program rose from 17 in 2005 to 73 this budget year, he said.
The returns of these companies do not show up in enforcement statistics, he said, but the collaboration can avoid controversies that can go on for years.
Having more money was not necessarily an advantage for individual taxpayers. The IRS said that last year it audited 9.25 percent of those with incomes of more than $1 million, compared with 6.3 percent in 2006. For those earning less than $100,000, the chances of getting audited were less than 1 percent.
The tax agency said total enforcement revenues in the 2007 budget year, from collections and appeals activities, were $59.2 billion, up from $48.7 billion the previous year.
© 2008 Associated Press
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

14 Comments so far
Show AllIRS doesn't investigate large corporations?
Hmmmm...
How do you spell Fascist collusion?
Remember:
Bribe Your Congressman! And the Decider too!
Or Else!
I've heard evidence that the administration is using the IRS to go after political enemies. The director of Quaker House reported that one of his contributers told him that the group's nonprofit status had been "suspended". The IRS didn't bother telling him of this unilateral action, but quietly pulled the plug on the group's donors. Quaker House got a lawyer. Their lawyer inquired. The IRS then unilaterally overturned its own "suspension" because it really had no evidence that Quaker House had done anything wrong.
Do you want to have to pay for a lawyer if you've done nothing wrong? What could the IRS do to you, if they wanted to be unlawful again?
I guess it's much easier to pick on the little guy. God forbid a large corporation should be in trouble. If they get in trouble there's a major rush to bail them out. No one is concerned about the taxpayers. They can sink or swim; but do cpntinue to bail out the major corporations; make it as easy for them as possible!
it is so simple it is overlooked..
they go after the little guys because they can't afford the army of lawyers , to drag out any investigation by the IRS, as the big boys do, lol then the big guys get to write of the pay of that army of lawyers on next years books, meanwhile they have a fair idea what they will "Have" to pay eventually, so they put that cash into high return investments and earn profit on it before handing it over many years later.
I am from Canada. We have much the same problem here. Corporations, big and small that use every trick and political donation they can to avoid paying taxes. They claim "citizens' rights" but carry little or none of a citizen's responsibilities, especially paying taxes on their profits. Many of our former "Canadian" companies are no longer even Canadian. Now many are registered as foreign companies in the Cayman Islands or Kuwait or some other off-shore tax haven. I understand that many of your so-called American firms are the same. (see Dick Cheney's Haliburton or Blackwater or KBR or -------). Meanwhile of course, they do much of their business sucking huge un-tenderred contract dollars out of our governments and taxpayers, all the while railing against "socialists" and for unfettered "free enterprise". They wouldn't exist if they could buttress their balance sheets with the subsidies that our elected representatives give them and which they in turn use to buy the politicians. I understand that most of your politicians actually are multi-million dollar shareholders in the companies they are supposed to be monitorring!! It must be terrible to know in the back of your mind that the companies (also now foreign companies in off-shore tax havens) on whose voting machine you are pushing buttons have a vested balance sheet interest in ensuring that the status quo is maintained. Hell, you can't even be sure that your vote is even being counted! I guess Robert Mugabe has just taken your 2000 Florida ( and 2004 Ohio) coups to the next level.
The rich and the corporations are the one's who should pay tax'es not the people and small buisness, just like everything else our government has it backwards.(we the people) not anymore (I THE GOVERNMENT),and CORPORATIONS who will one day soon, take over. We need to abolish the (IRS) Thats how our framers of our constitution ment it to be. join the fight & we the people.
I am a 100% Service Connected Disabled Vietnam Vet that is being audited for 2001 supposed taxable income of $3,051.00. I am told I owe $578.00 plus penalties. In 2001 I was notified that the "government" had found my old service records (realize that I am a female Vet, and we were not even counted on the census until 1990) and they owed me back pay for many, many years. I received interest from my bank on that money because I knew it was foolish to keep the cash at home - ever try buy a house and a car with cash? I was served on 10Mar08 and have 30 days to pay the "tax" and penalties totaling over $1200.00. Where can I get one of those lawyers that the "biggies" have to get me out of this mess?
Actually the story is far more high-level hanky-panky then so far suggested. The slippery "adviser" who came up up with this scam was "Lantz" (spell?) His idea was simple: persecute the IRS. Everybody will join in the hate fest, the echo-chamber will scream about "Getting the IRS/ Gov't off your backs" then drastic cuts will force a re-focusing of audits downward and, Voila!, the big theives (in high places) will walk with the loot. David Kay Johnston exposed this and a boatload of what amounts to welfare for the wealthy scams in the mid 90's in his "Perfectly Legal". You and I picked up the tab, now over one trillion dollars and counting.
Any bets where Bill's Wal-Mart wife's allegiance will remain....considering her EXPERIENCE??!
PaulK, the Quaker House problem (which I am also aware of) isn't really about audits. It's more likely part of a pattern of politicized IRS activity that appears aimed directly at nonprofit organizations (including churches) that dare to critize the government. Nothing one can prove, of course. In cases like this, a particular non-profit just mysteriously vanishes from the list of approved 501(c)(3)s, so when an individual donor gets audited, the donation is disallowed -- even though the organization is in fact still an approved 501(c)(3). It's not new -- there were similar problems in the Vietnam era -- but always annoying.
The untouchable class is growing. Besides, if they offshore their juicy tidbits to the Caymans, Dubai, etc., deal with "dirty banks", operate on multiple continents, have a shell-game structure, etc. the IRS is probably looking at them like David first looked at Goliath: a hopeless battle. They can get easier pickings elsewhere.
Corpswave66's problems reveal just how fucked up the tax system is, how unjust it is, how the ugly bureaucracy is tuned to benefit those at the top, and de-tuned to the needs of real folks.
Although this article addresses statistics for individual taxpayers earning less than $100,000 and more than $1,000,000, the omission of statistics for individuals (and joint filers) with AGIs from $100,000 to $1,000,000 is a significant omission. This category is where the IRS has most significantly increased the number of audits, thereby giving them an alibi to respond to any criticism of reducing corporate audits. Even if the IRS doesn't get audit money out of these taxpayers, the time it takes for the taxpayer to deal with the audit soon discourages many taxpayers from taking deductions to which they are entitled.
This is fascism with a capital F.
It makes sense to me that the IRS should be more selective about who they audit. I'm just a gullible moron who believes everything that my government tells me. This whole story just isn't worth discussing. :)
Tax is just a percent of the Gross Domestic Product. If you take it from the owners of the means of production or take it from the production or take it from the people who work on the production - doesn't matter. The little guy is always held down by the oppression of tax. His salary is dependent on how much the tax burden is.
Reform is to audit 100% of tax returns. Reform is to charge to a flat tax and everybody pays no matter how many kids you have or how much you make. (A flat tax may not fit the business world but it would mean that people like me would no longer have to file; the tax would just be gone from our pay check, save a lot of costs too. We wouldn't have to see all that stupid question and answer software for sale every year. All tax software sucks - asking a person if they want to take a flat rate mileage deduction or the depreciation on the vehicle? I don't know; which one saves me the most money?) Please forgive the rant - I just finished filing. Real reform is to make it illegal for the richest person to make more than 7 times the wage of the lowest full time employee. I'm going back to my fantasy world now.
yep, the little guys loose their house/car etc. and the CEO's making 60- 200 million dollar bonuses buy them up to flip or rent.