Staggering 82% Don’t Think Biden Should Still Run for President: Poll

/0 Comments/in , /by

A huge majority of people believe President Biden should drop out of the 2024 race for the White House after Thursday night’s debate debacle, a new Post poll shows.

Eighty-two percent of respondents said the 81-year-old Democrat should not run for re-election in the wake of his disastrous face-off against former President Donald Trump.

In comparison, just 18% said Biden should keep campaigning.

As of Friday morning, a total of 3,340 people had cast their vote in The Post’s poll, which was put out after Biden went head to head with Trump in the first 2024 presidential debate.

The results come after Biden’s raspy and halting attempts to confront his GOP rival on stage sparked fresh calls for the incumbent to consider stepping aside as his party’s nominee — just four months out from the election. (Read more from “Staggering 82% Don’t Think Biden Should Still Run for President: Poll” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

New IRS Initiative Targets Tax-Return Non-Filers

/1 Comment/in , /by

Each year, millions of citizens required to file tax returns fail to do so. According to a 2020 analysis by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), the number of suspected tax-return non-filers grew from approximately 7.5 million in 2010 to nearly 11 million in 2016. I can only assume the numbers are much higher now, given the economic grief the nation has suffered since March 2020.

The IRS identifies non-filers primarily by third-party income reports filed with the agency. The most common reports are Forms W-2 showing wage income, Forms 1099 showing miscellaneous income, and similar documents reporting such things as interest and dividends. The IRS compares the Social Security numbers in these reports with its database of filed tax returns. When data show, say, income reported on a Form W-2, but no corresponding tax return, the agency assumes that person is a non-filer. The IRS also identifies potential non-filers by analyzing their prior-year filing histories. For example, suppose a person filed a return in 2022 reporting $100,000 of wage income. It is presumed that such person is also required to file in 2023, and is likely to have earned the same or similar income.

Of course, not every person who fails to file a return is required to file. Code sections 6001, 6011, 6012, and 6017 generally control the question of who’s required to file. The requirement to file a return is driven by the receipt of income, not the question of whether one actually owes tax. One’s income must exceed a certain threshold (depending generally on filing status) before the obligation to file is triggered. Moreover, just because one was required to file in a past year does not itself mean he will be required to file in subsequent years. Each tax year’s filing and payment obligations are controlled solely by the facts and circumstances of that particular year.

The Failure to File May Be Criminal

The failure to file a tax return can be a criminal act, subject to potential fines and jail time. Code section 7203 makes the willful failure to file a return a misdemeanor. However, in a failure-to-file case, the IRS must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was legally required to file and willfully failed to do so. That is, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure to file was a voluntary, intentional act carried out specifically for the purposes of violating the law. This essential element of willfulness makes proving a criminal tax case very difficult.

Most Non-Filer Cases Are Civil

Because of the strict burden of proof required in criminal cases, most non-filer cases are purely civil. In civil cases, the IRS works to secure the delinquent returns, or otherwise makes a tax assessment based on available information. It then sets out to collect the assessment. In a civil case (unlike a criminal case), the burden of proof is on the taxpayer. With regard to an unfiled return, the taxpayer must prove that the return was filed or that no return was legally required. Otherwise, the taxpayer has the affirmative duty to report income and any deductible expenses allowed by law.

Short of that, the IRS uses its authority under code section 6020(b) to prepare a return for the non-filer. This is known as a Substitute for Return (SFR). Section 6020(b) reads as follows:

If any person fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from such information as he can obtain through testimony or otherwise.

An SFR is generally based on income reports on file with the IRS. For example, if W-2s report wages of $100,000, the IRS issues an SFR showing $100,000 of income. It does so, however, without giving the taxpayer in question the benefit of any deductions, exemptions, or credits.

An SFR is not limited to just income reports. As the statute provides, it can be based on “such information” as is available. That might include Bureau of Labor statistics on income averages in the taxpayer’s area, income reported on prior years’ tax returns, or any other information the IRS may wish to employ. Note, however, that the IRS does bear a limited (but important) burden of proof where the issue of unreported income is concerned.

The Non-Filer Initiative

During the pandemic, the IRS became overwhelmed with up to 35 million unprocessed tax returns and incoming letters from taxpayers responding to IRS notices. As part of the plan to work out of the backlog, the agency stopped sending outgoing notices to taxpayers. As a result, non-filers no longer received notices explaining that they had a duty to file one or more missing tax returns. Beginning in January 2024, the IRS restarted its collection-notice machine and began sending millions of notices to taxpayers reminding them that they owe money to the IRS.

On February 29, 2024, the IRS announced a compliance initiative pointed directly at non-filers. Notice IR-2024-56 states that the IRS is targeting “high-income taxpayers who have filed to file income tax returns.” Using funding granted by the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS claims to be mailing out approximately 125,000 notices to taxpayers who haven’t filed for one or more years. The “compliance alert” will be a CP59 notice.

The CP59 notice states that the IRS has information showing that you received income (such as from wages) during the period in question, and that it has no return on file for that year. The notice gives various options for responding. You can: a) explain that a return was already filed (and provide a copy); b) explain why you believe you aren’t required to file; or c) file the requested return by the due date provided in the notice. IRS Form 15103, Form 1040 Delinquency, can be used as a response to a CP59 notice.

Notice CP59 explains that penalties and interest continue to grow as long as the tax owed (if any) is not paid. Moreover, it also explains that the IRS may prepare an SFR if the taxpayer does not respond, and alerts the taxpayer to the potential of criminal prosecution for willful failure to file. The notice also asserts that the IRS may commence an audit covering the year(s) of the missing return(s).

Are ‘High-Income Earners’ the Only Targets?

Notice IR-2024-56 states that the target audience for this wave of notices is those earning more than $400,000 per year. In fact, it says that 100,000 of the first wave of notices will be addressed to those earning between $400,000 and $1 million between tax years 2017 and 2021, while another 25,000 notices will be addressed to those earning more than $1 million during that period.

The $400,000 “magic number” comes from the Biden administration’s claim that nobody earning less than $400,000 per year will be subject to the increased IRS enforcement actions enabled by the supplemental funding authorized in the Inflation Reduction Act. Later, former IRS commissioner Charles Rettig stated that the new enforcement initiatives would not be directed at those earning less than $400,000 annually at any greater rate than “historical levels.” This sounds good, but the problem is that small businesses and self-employed individuals, historically, are the targets of about 60 percent of all IRS enforcement. The remaining 40 percent fall in the other 14 or so categories of return filers, including large businesses, wage-earners, and investors.

Moreover, the vast majority of non-filers are not high-income taxpayers. As we know from TIGTA’s research (mentioned above), of the nearly 11 million non-filers in 2016, only 879,415 were considered “high-income.” That’s fewer than 10 percent of all non-filers identified by TIGTA. Even worse, TIGTA used the IRS’s long-standing definition of “high-income” to single out those 879,415 taxpayers.

What Is the IRS’s Definition of ‘High-Income’?

The IRS’s definition is found in its Internal Revenue Manual (IRM). This is the vast administrative handbook the agency uses to guide its employees in the various procedural tasks they must carry out to enforce and administer the tax code. Part 5 of the IRM deals with the collection process. Chapter 19 of part 5 discusses the process of dealing with non-filers. It should come as no surprise that the IRS has always made it a matter of high priority to “expedite case processing” in high-income non-filer cases. (See: IRM part 5.19.2.8.1 (11-06-2015)). Thus, it is nothing new that the IRS is now chasing high-income citizens who have not filed tax returns.

But what may surprise some people is how the IRS defines a “high-income taxpayer.” Per the IRM section referenced above, a “high-income taxpayer” is any person, based on income reports received by the IRS (W-2s and 1099s), with income of “$100,000 and over.”

Based on the number of non-filers (nearly 11 million) identified by TIGTA, and the fact that the IRS has historically labeled high-income taxpayers as those earning at least $100,000 (not $400,000), it is inconceivable to believe that the IRS will only target those making over $400,000 and leave the rest alone. Even using the $100,000 threshold, fewer than 10 percent of the known non-filers fall into the “high-income” definition. Since the IRS mailed just 125,000 notices (with multiple notices going to some taxpayers), barely 1 percent of the known non-filers are being targeted by the current initiative.

But that’s not going to remain the case. As the IRS ramps up this process and restores its automated systems to the pre-pandemic status quo, there is no question in my mind that it will soon turn its attention to the broader universe of non-filers whose incomes fall well under the $400,000 threshold.

Make no mistake about it: The IRS will target the non-filers identified through information returns with its notice CP59. If you are one of these people, you should, as Commissioner Werfel suggests in notice IR-2024-56, “consult with a trusted tax professional so [you] can quickly file [your] late returns.” You then need to make arrangements to pay the tax you owe, or work to negotiate some other resolution. (For more from the author of “New IRS Initiative Targets Tax-Return Non-Filers” please click HERE)

___________________________________________

DANIEL J. PILLA is a tax-litigation specialist and the author of 15 books.

Photo credit: Flickr

Biden Officials Turn Their Backs on Each Other After Disastrous Debate Performance

/1 Comment/in , /by

Biden officials are pointing fingers at one another after the president suffered a series of malfunctions Thursday night during his first debate against former President Donald Trump.

According to Axios, Biden’s debate was a “DEFCON 1” moment for Democrats— and now his aides are trying to point fingers at one another to blame someone for his train wreck performance.

A person in Biden’s inner circle argued that the 81-year-old president was “over prepared” and should have rested the week leading up to the debate.

Another said Biden relied too much on the details and instead should have focused on having vigor and energy.

“They prepared him for the wrong debate,” a Biden official claimed, while another said, “It’s sad but it also makes me so mad to think of all the smart people lying and trying to make this work.” (Read more from “Biden Officials Turn Their Backs on Each Other After Disastrous Debate Performance” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Biden Campaign Co-Chair Insists President’s Cognitive Capabilities “As Good as Ever”

/1 Comment/in , /by

In the wake of President Joe Biden’s heavily scrutinized debate performance, Biden Campaign Co-Chair Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) appeared on CNN’s “Situation Room” to defend the president’s mental capabilities. Despite being pressed by host Wolf Blitzer, Coons dodged a direct answer about whether Biden’s debate performance reflects his daily cognitive state, instead maintaining that Biden remains “sharp and engaged.”

During the interview, Blitzer referenced Vice President Kamala Harris’s own evasive responses when questioned about Biden’s debate performance. “Senator, you mentioned Vice President Kamala Harris, she repeatedly, last night, dodged Anderson Cooper’s questions about whether the Biden we saw in the debate is who he is every day. What’s your answer to that? Because you know him well,” Blitzer asked.

Coons sidestepped the question, choosing instead to extol Biden’s general abilities. “I do. And I was just in Europe for a few days where the G7 Summit was held in Italy. Leaders from across Europe who’ve met with him and worked with him, say the same thing that I’ll tell you from working with him and meeting with him, he is sharp and engaged, his cognitive capabilities are as good as ever,” Coons responded.

Despite Coons’s defense, the president’s debate performance has intensified concerns about his cognitive health. Biden’s raspy voice, frequent pauses, and difficulty completing sentences have left many questioning his mental acuity. Polls reflect these worries: a CBS News/YouGov poll found that only 26% of voters believe Biden has the “mental and cognitive health” to serve a second term, and a WSJ poll showed that just 36% of registered voters think Biden is “mentally up for the job.”

Coons’s insistence on Biden’s sharpness comes after two Biden aides attributed his debate struggles to a cold, an excuse not mentioned before the debate. This strategy of deflection, combined with Harris’s and Coons’s evasions, only fuels skepticism about Biden’s fitness for office. Coons’s mention of Biden’s “shuffle” and “softly” spoken nature does little to alleviate these concerns.

Coons attempted to bolster his argument by praising Biden’s leadership and decision-making abilities. “His abilities for leadership, for surrounding himself with outstanding people, and making the right choice for the American people, that is undimmed. And, frankly, his record is one of the strongest of any president in my lifetime,” he claimed. However, this praise contrasts sharply with the visible struggles Biden displayed during the debate.

Bill Clinton Defends Biden After Disastrous Debate Performance

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former President Bill Clinton defended President Joe Biden after his performance at the presidential debate on Thursday night against former President Donald Trump.

In a post on X, Clinton highlighted how Biden had “given us 3 years of solid leadership,” and created a “record number of new jobs,” and was “making real progress solving the climate crisis,” among other things.

“I’ll leave the debate rating to the pundits, but here’s what I know: fact and history matter,” Clinton wrote. “Joe Biden has given us 3 years of solid leadership, steadying us after the pandemic, creating a record number of new jobs, making real progress solving the climate crisis, and launching a successful effort in reducing inflation, all while pulling us out of the quagmire Donald Trump left us in. That’s what’s really at stake in November.”

Clinton’s words come after former President Barack Obama also came to Biden’s defense, noting that “bad debate nights happen.” (Read more from “Bill Clinton Defends Biden After Disastrous Debate Performance” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Supreme Court Rejects Purdue Pharma’s $6 Billion Opioid Settlement

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Purdue Pharma’s proposed $6 billion bankruptcy settlement. A 5-4 majority opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the Biden administration‘s argument that Purdue’s settlement is an abuse of bankruptcy protections meant for debtors in financial distress, not for the owners of the multibillion-dollar opioid company, the Sackler family, who withdrew $11 billion from Purdue before agreeing to contribute $6 billion to its opioid settlement.

The Sackler family’s plan to settle lawsuits and transform Purdue Pharma into a nonprofit organization dedicated to addiction treatment was initially approved by a bankruptcy judge in 2011. The U.S. Trustee Program, a Justice Department watchdog, intervened and claimed settlement terms required unanimous consent by the roughly 60,000 people who have filed personal injury claims, despite the plan’s approval by over 95% of the voting claimants.

After years of litigation, the Supreme Court in August temporarily barred the pharmaceutical from moving forward with bankruptcy proceedings and agreed to hear Biden administration’s challenge to the plan on the merits.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The Sackler family’s plan to settle lawsuits and transform Purdue Pharma into a nonprofit organization dedicated to addiction treatment was initially approved by a bankruptcy judge in 2011. (Read more from “Supreme Court Rejects Purdue Pharma’s $6 Billion Opioid Settlement” HERE)

Supreme Court Blows Up DOJ’s Biggest Charges Against Donald Trump

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that the government cannot prosecute January 6 defendants under 1512(c)(2), the “Enron” statute, for generally obstructing “an official proceeding” unless they interfered with objects or documents.

The bombshell decision could result in hundreds of convictions against non-violent January 6 defendants being overturned — and could result in at least some charges being dropped against President Donald Trump as well.

1512(c)(2) was passed after the Enron scandal, when it was discovered that federal law had a loophole: it was illegal to instruct others to destroy evidence, but not illegal to destroy evidence oneself. Consequently, Congress passed a law prohibiting tampering with witnesses or evidence that is to be used in an “official proceeding.” The Department of Justice used that law to prosecute participants in the Capitol riot based on the idea that they had “obstructed” an official proceeding — i.e. the certification of the Electoral College vote in the 2020 presidential election. But critics said that 1512(c)(2) had never been intended to apply to protests or other First Amendment-connected activities.

In a 6-3 decision, with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court overruled the (heavily anti-Trump) D.C. Circuit and said that 1512(c)(2) could not be used as broadly as the Department of Justice had done.

“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Roberts wrote. The term “otherwise” — as in “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding” — could not be used so broadly as to include trespassing. (Read more from “Supreme Court Blows Up DOJ’s Biggest Charges Against Donald Trump” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Reporters Say Biden Campaign Staff Tried to Stop Them From Interviewing Critical Voters

/0 Comments/in , /by

Reporters claimed Friday that President Joe Biden’s campaign staffers tried to halt their interviews with voters once they started to turn critical of the president following a rough debate showing.

Biden faced off against former President Donald Trump in a rather unprecedented debate format, as the two appeared in the CNN studio on Thursday with no live audience and mics with the ability to be cut off on Friday. Panic set in among Democrats all but 30 minutes into the debate, as the president stumbled through answers, even once appearing to freeze before moderator Jake Tapper bailed him out. The panic became so full-fledged that Democrats even began to call on the president to bow out of the 2024 presidential race.

In the aftermath of the first presidential debate, several reporters claimed that while at campaign events with voters on Friday, Biden campaign staffers tried to cut off the conversation as they moved in a negative direction.

“As I spoke to voters at a Las Vegas rally for Vice President Harris, a Nevada Biden campaign staffer followed me and twice asked that voters end their interviews when their comments turned critical of President Biden,” Simon Levien, a New York Times reporter, wrote.

“You can’t tell me that there’s not anyone better —” a voter told Levien, expressing the desire for a different Democratic presidential candidate.

(Read more from “Reporters Say Biden Campaign Staff Tried to Stop Them From Interviewing Critical Voters” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

SCOTUS Hands Down Huge Decision Affecting J6 Defendants

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Supreme Court has taken a judicial katana to a statute that federal prosecutors weaponized to go after those who participated in the January 6 incident. The question before the court was whether the “obstruction of an official proceeding” statute could be used in how the Justice Department weaponized it to go after hundreds of January 6 defendants. As SCOTUS Blog covered in April, the plaintiff, Joseph Fischer, a former police officer, argued that the statute only pertained to evidence tampering in a congressional investigation. During oral arguments, justices weren’t convinced by the government’s interpretation, arguing that it could cast too much of a net.

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court handed down a massive blow to federal prosecutors, concluding, per SCOTUS Blog’s Amy Howe, that for the statute to be used in this way, there must be evidence to the fact that “the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records.” In a blow to the narrative that the Supreme Court is rogue and right-wing, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented (via SCOTUS Blog):

The court holds that to prove a violation of the law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.

The court reverses the D.C. Circuit, which had adopted a broader reading of the law to allow the charges against Fischer to go forward. The case now goes back to the D.C. Circuit — which, the court says, can assess whether the indictment can still stand in light of this new and narrower interpretation.

Justice Jackson, who joined the majority opinion, also has a concurring opinion. She stresses that despite “the shocking circumstances involved in this case,” the “Court’s task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here.”

(Read more from “SCOTUS Hands Down Huge Decision Affecting J6 Defendants” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Biden Just Put on the Most Disastrous Debate Performance in Presidential History

/2 Comments/in , , /by

Sure, it might sound like hyperbole, but I can’t think of a more devastating presidential debate performance than the one Joe Biden had in his first meeting with Donald Trump. Indeed, even with abnormally low expectations, Biden tripped over them as if they were sandbags. After watching post-debate reaction, it’s safe to say no presidential debate has ever rattled a political party quite like this one.

The scratchy and frail voice. The speedy mumbling — it was like watching a TV at 2x speed. The overall incoherence. The confused and angry stares. The jumbling of thoughts —“I was recently in, in, in, um, France for D-Day, and I spoke to — all about those heroes that died …” and so on — was relentless. It was difficult to watch.

Recall that Biden’s team, down in the polls, pushed for this debate. Remember that video the president cut mocking and challenging Trump to face him? The Biden team reportedly fought for the strict rules implemented by CNN. Then the president took an entire week off from his job just to prepare for the contest. Letting him debate was political malpractice. Letting him run for the presidency is a dereliction of basic decency.

You remember all that solemn talk about 25th Amendment during Trump’s presidency? Where are these patriots now?

Incidentally, CNN’s debate format was — whether the former president liked it or not — good for Trump. It reined in many of his worst inclinations, while leaving Biden to wander off into verbal dead ends. And though CNN’s Jake Tapper tried to save Biden once or twice, it’s fair to say, on balance, the questions weren’t terrible. (Read more from “Biden Just Put on the Most Disastrous Debate Performance in Presidential History” HERE)