Internal Revenue Service

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Woman Pleads Guilty in Covid Tax Credit Scheme That Netted $33 Million

      by

      A Nevada business owner prepared and filed false tax returns to fraudulently obtain Covid relief money for her businesses and others, prosecutors said.Some people binge-watched shows during the Covid pandemic. Others picked up pickleball. But according to federal prosecutors, one Las Vegas woman prepared and filed false tax returns for her business and others at a busy average rate of nearly 80 per month.Over a 16-month period beginning in June 2022, the Justice Department said Friday, the woman, Candies Goode-McCoy, filed more than 1,200 returns in order to fraudulently claim Covid-19 tax credits of nearly $100 million.Ms. Goode-McCoy, 34, who pleaded guilty under a plea agreement on Thursday in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas to charges of conspiracy to defraud the government, managed to get the I.R.S. to pay out about $33 million, prosecutors said. She took $1.3 million of that herself, they said, and received an additional $800,000 from those for whom she prepared the false returns.Ms. Goode-McCoy, who could face as much as 10 years in prison when she is sentenced in February 2026, used the money to gamble at casinos, take vacations and buy luxury cars, prosecutors said. She also purchased designer clothing from Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci and Louis Vuitton, court documents show.Her lawyer could not be reached for comment on Friday.According to prosecutors, the businesses for which Ms. Goode-McCoy prepared taxes were not eligible to receive the refundable credits in the amounts claimed.Under the plea agreement, Ms. Goode-McCoy agreed to return the most of the $33 million that was fraudulently obtained.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk and DOGE vs. Regulators

      by

      The billionaire has needled government agencies, armed with potential influence over their budgets. But some of these organizations are also looking into his interests.Elon Musk’s attacks on the agencies that regulate his businesses are raising questions about conflicts of interest.Eric Lee/The New York TimesMusk vs. regulatorsElon Musk remains perhaps the most consequential figure in President-elect Donald Trump’s orbit, with a commission for cutting government spending headed by him and Vivek Ramaswamy — widely known by its acronym, DOGE — promising huge reductions.Federal regulators have become prominent targets for Musk and his allies. But those agencies are continuing to scrutinize the tech billionaire’s interests, raising questions about conflicts.“The SEC is just another weaponized institution doing political dirty work,” Musk posted on X on Thursday, joining a flurry of right-wing attacks on the agency. The impetus for the ire: an appeals court ruling that Nasdaq can’t require diversity on the boards of companies that list on the exchange, a longtime bugbear of conservatives.Ramaswamy wrote on X of the commission: “When an agency like the SEC is so repeatedly & thoroughly embarrassed in federal court for flouting the law, it loses its legitimacy as a law enforcement body.”That comes after Musk took aim at the I.R.S. last month, when he polled his X followers about what to do with the tax authority’s budget. The overwhelming response: “Deleted.”But the S.E.C. is renewing scrutiny of Musk. He disclosed on X that the regulator had given him an offer to settle an inquiry into unspecified charges. A letter from Alex Spiro of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Musk’s lawyer, claimed that the agency had given them 48 hours to accept or face punishment, as part of an “improperly motivated campaign.” Spiro’s letter also revealed that the commission had reopened an investigation this week into Neuralink, Musk’s brain-implant start-up.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Tax Preparers Charged in Scheme to Defraud Covid Relief of $65 Million

      by

      The preparers filed for pandemic-related tax credits on behalf of ineligible clients and then netted hefty filing fees, officials said.Two Mississippi tax preparers used multiple schemes to defraud $65 million from programs that had been designed to help businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic, federal prosecutors said this week.The preparers, Renata Walton, 44, and Nicole Jones, 36, both of Olive Branch, Miss., were indicted on more than 50 counts of wire fraud, money laundering, preparing false tax returns and obstruction of justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Tennessee said on Wednesday.They both pleaded not guilty and were each released on $100,000 bond, court documents show.Ms. Walton owned R&B Tax Express in Moscow, Tenn., where she and Ms. Jones prepared tax returns.Federal prosecutors said that the two women contacted small-business clients and asked if they were interested in pandemic-related grant money, according to court records. The women would then file for pandemic-related tax credits on behalf of the clients even though they were ineligible for those funds, officials said.The money came mostly from the Employee Retention Credit and the Sick and Family Leave Credit programs, court documents show.The Employee Retention Credit program offered companies thousands of dollars per employee if they could show that the pandemic was hurting their businesses, but that they were continuing to pay workers. Sick and Family Leave Credit offered tax breaks to employers who voluntarily gave their workers paid sick and family leave if they needed to take time off because of the pandemic.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Older Workers to Get ‘Super’ 401(k) Catch-Up Contributions in 2025

      by

      Workers who are 60 to 63 will be able to put in up to $11,250 in extra contributions, if they can afford it.Will you be age 60 to 63 next year? Lucky you! You have the option to contribute several thousand dollars more to your workplace retirement plan.That’s if you can afford it, and many workers will find it’s a stretch.Federal tax law already allows people 50 and older to make extra contributions, above the annual deferral limit, to a 401(k) or similar employer retirement plan. This year and next, that standard “catch-up” contribution is $7,500.But starting next year, the catch-up contribution limit will be higher for people in their early 60s, as part of the federal Secure 2.0 tax law passed in 2022. They can contribute up to $11,250 next year — an additional $3,750 in catch-up contributions — beyond the general 2025 deferral limit of $23,500, the Internal Revenue Service said. That means they can potentially contribute up to $34,750 in total to a workplace retirement account.This additional contribution — sometimes called an “enhanced” or “super” catch-up option — is available to workers ages 60, 61, 62 and 63. You’re eligible if you reach that age during the calendar year, said Dan Snyder, director of personal financial planning for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (Once savers turn 64, they’re no longer eligible for the extra savings but can contribute the standard catch-up amount.)The idea is to give people who are nearing retirement age, but are behind in savings, the chance to accumulate more money for their post-work lives. “This is an opportunity to make up for mistakes from the past,” said David John, senior strategic policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute, which focuses on issues relevant to older Americans.Getting Americans to save more for retirement is a concern as the population ages, especially as the number of companies offering pensions dwindles. The typical household headed by people ages 55 to 64 has just $10,000 saved in a retirement account, according to an analysis of federal data by the Economic Policy Institute and the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      I.R.S. Failed to Police Puerto Rico Tax Break, Whistle-Blower Says

      by

      An insider accused the agency of failing to scrutinize a lucrative tax break in Puerto Rico designed to lure wealthy Americans to the island.For the past decade, thousands of wealthy Americans have been flocking to Puerto Rico to take advantage of a tax break that can cut their tax bills to zero. For nearly as long, there have been allegations that the benefit enables multimillionaires to avoid paying what they owe when they reap big investment profits.Now, an Internal Revenue Service insider has accused the agency of failing to police the tax break. Despite a high-profile campaign announced more than three years ago to unearth possible abuse, the agency has audited barely two dozen people and has collected back taxes from none, according to a letter that an agency insider wrote this year to lawmakers and that has been reviewed by The New York Times, as well as interviews with I.R.S. officials.Senate officials have begun an investigation into the whistle-blower’s allegations about the Puerto Rican tax benefit.“It’s been three years since the I.R.S. announced its enforcement campaign on this issue,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. “It needs to pick up the pace.”Hamstrung by decades of budget cuts, the I.R.S. has regularly struggled to crack down on tax avoidance by the wealthiest Americans and large companies. Audits of millionaires have declined more than 80 percent over the past decade, reaching record lows. The agency rarely examines giant private equity firms. And the annual “tax gap” — the difference between taxes that are owed and what is paid — is estimated to be $600 billion.In an interview, Danny Werfel, the I.R.S. commissioner, said the agency’s enforcement campaign in Puerto Rico, while still in its “early chapters,” was accelerating because of the $80 billion in new funding that the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act provided to the agency.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows

      by

      Former President Donald J. Trump used a dubious accounting maneuver to claim improper tax breaks from his troubled Chicago tower, according to an Internal Revenue Service inquiry uncovered by The New York Times and ProPublica. Losing a yearslong audit battle over the claim could mean a tax bill of more than $100 million.The 92-story, glass-sheathed skyscraper along the Chicago River is the tallest and, at least for now, the last major construction project by Mr. Trump. Through a combination of cost overruns and the bad luck of opening in the teeth of the Great Recession, it was also a vast money loser.But when Mr. Trump sought to reap tax benefits from his losses, the I.R.S. has argued, he went too far and in effect wrote off the same losses twice.The first write-off came on Mr. Trump’s tax return for 2008. With sales lagging far behind projections, he claimed that his investment in the condo-hotel tower met the tax code definition of “worthless,” because his debt on the project meant he would never see a profit. That move resulted in Mr. Trump reporting losses as high as $651 million for the year, The Times and ProPublica found.There is no indication the I.R.S. challenged that initial claim, though that lack of scrutiny surprised tax experts consulted for this article. But in 2010, Mr. Trump and his tax advisers sought to extract further benefits from the Chicago project, executing a maneuver that would draw years of inquiry from the I.R.S. First, he shifted the company that owned the tower into a new partnership. Because he controlled both companies, it was like moving coins from one pocket to another. Then he used the shift as justification to declare $168 million in additional losses over the next decade.The issues around Mr. Trump’s case were novel enough that, during his presidency, the I.R.S. undertook a high-level legal review before pursuing it. The Times and ProPublica, in consultation with tax experts, calculated that the revision sought by the I.R.S. would create a new tax bill of more than $100 million, plus interest and potential penalties.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      QAnon Supporter Pours Cash Into a Legal-Defense Fund for Trump Allies

      by

      The fund, meant to help pay the mounting legal bills of people connected to investigations into Donald Trump, has raised more than $1.6 million, a new filing showed.A supporter of the QAnon conspiracy theory whom the Trump campaign distanced itself from in 2020. A real-estate developer and Trump megadonor. A funeral home company.Those were among the top contributors to a legal-defense fund established by allies of Donald J. Trump to help pay the mounting legal bills of people connected to the various investigations into the former president. The fund is not intended for Mr. Trump’s own bills.The fund, the Patriot Legal Defense Fund Inc., raised a total of $1,624,360 from July through early December, according to documents the group filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday. The group made another filing on Wednesday that showed zero contributions and expenditures. It was unclear why.The biggest donation in the I.R.S. documents filed Tuesday — $1 million — was from the Caryn L Hildenbrand Living Trust. Ms. Hildenbrand is also known as Caryn Borland. She and her husband, Michael, gave more than $1 million in campaign-related contributions to Mr. Trump’s re-election effort in 2020. Their sharing of memes and social media posts about the QAnon conspiracy theory led Mike Pence, then the vice president, to cancel a fund-raiser with them. Efforts to reach the couple were unsuccessful.The conspiracy theory, embraced by a segment of Mr. Trump’s supporters, involves false claims that top Democrats are Satan-worshiping pedophiles and that the former president was recruited to break up the global pedophile cabal. Mr. Trump has increasingly nodded to the movement and its memes in his social media posts.The filing on Tuesday listed just 21 contributors, with one donation as low as $60. One donation of $34,000 was from the Cleveland Funeral Home Inc. Another was from Robert Zarnegin, a wealthy real-estate developer in California who has been a frequent donor to Mr. Trump.Michael Glassner, a longtime political aide to Mr. Trump who is leading the effort, said the group had been “gratified at the early support” it had received. He said the criminal cases against Mr. Trump from the Justice Department, which he insisted were politically weaponized, had “required many innocent supporters of President Trump to require attorneys, and the Legal Defense Fund is able to assist them with these costs.”Kenny Williams, who co-owns the Cleveland funeral home that made the $34,000 donation, said via text message that his associate had a personal relationship with Mr. Trump, but he declined to answer additional questions about that associate. “We still stand behind him!” he wrote of Mr. Trump. “He is a man of his word.”None of the money has so far been allocated to people with legal bills, according to the filing. The largest expense paid by the defense fund was $18,136 to Mr. Trump’s members-only club and residence, Mar-a-Lago. The Florida club hosted a dinner for the defense fund on Nov. 29 that Mr. Trump attended.Most of the money raised appears to have been in connection with that event.Another Trump-aligned group, a political action committee called Save America, has burned through tens of millions of dollars to help pay legal fees for the former president and a number of people connected to the web of investigations and court cases he is facing. By the middle of this year, the last time the group was required to file with the Federal Election Commission, Save America had spent more than $20 million in legal fees.The amount was so large that Save America, after sending $60 million to a different outside group supporting Mr. Trump’s campaign, requested a refund. Save America has been steadily getting money sent back to it from that other outside group, the super PAC called MAGA Inc., according to two people familiar with the matter.The crush of legal bills, which has grown as Mr. Trump has prepared for four possible trials in four different jurisdictions after being charged with 91 felony counts, has been a source of strain within the former president’s orbit. That’s especially the case because Mr. Trump does not like spending his own money on lawyers. Kitty Bennett More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      With Poll Results Favoring Trump, Should Biden Step Aside?

      by

      More from our inbox:Reducing I.R.S. FundingHealth Insurance, SimplifiedPoll results show President Biden losing to Donald J. Trump by margins of four to 10 percentage points in key battleground states.Doug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Voters in 5 Battlegrounds Favor Trump Over Biden” (front page, Nov. 6):When will the Democratic Party stop sitting on its hands and do something about the dire reality of the coming presidential election?The most recent New York Times/Siena College poll has President Biden behind Donald Trump in five of six swing states while his approval ratings among youth and minorities — two essential demographics for the party — continue to plummet.There comes a time when we have to say, “Dad, you’ve been a wonderful father and we love you dearly, but we are taking away the car keys.”We can all see it: the shuffle, the drifting focus, the mental confusion during a news conference in Vietnam. Mr. Biden’s handlers keep him under close wraps now, but the gasps among the electorate are going to be frequent when he gets out on the campaign trail debate circuit.This is no time to nominate an octogenarian who refuses to acknowledge his visibly dwindling abilities. The fact that Mr. Trump is only three years younger is irrelevant. Facts, logic and even multiple criminal proceedings are nonfactors when your opponent is a cult figure whose worshipers are willing to follow him blindly into authoritarianism.What the Democrats need to win is vigor, freshness and the hope of positive change. This is no time to cling to gentlemanly traditions of incumbency.Mr. Biden should go down in history as the president who led us out of our darkest hours, but if he refuses to pass the torch to a younger generation, he will be remembered as just another aging politician who refused to let go.If the Democratic Party sits back idly, pleading helplessness in our moment of need, it will prove that this country has not one but two dysfunctional parties.Bill IbelleProvidence, R.I.To the Editor:I read this headline, “Voters in 5 Battlegrounds Favor Trump Over Biden,” and was shocked; then I looked at the charts and graphs in the paper, and was depressed, and turned to my application for Canadian citizenship. Then finally, on Page A13 (they will have to pry the print paper out of my dying hands), I see in large print: “Polls have often failed to predict results of elections this far out.”I really hate polls, but believe they have the power to sway people significantly. So, why publish them this far out if they are lousy predictors at this stage?Betsy ShackelfordDecatur, Ga.To the Editor:The media’s coverage of President Biden is the principal reason the latest poll shows him behind Donald Trump in five of six critical states.Mr. Biden inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and the gravest public health crisis in a century. He got off to the fastest start of any president since F.D.R., creating over six million jobs in his first year and reaching his goal of the vaccination of over 200 million Americans in fewer than 100 days. Yet the bulk of the reporting for most of his presidency since then has involved inflation and his age.Underreported is the impact of Mr. Biden’s other achievements: the largest investment in green energy in American history; a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure; the first federal gun safety legislation in nearly three decades; and the biggest expansion of veterans’ benefits in over three decades.Michael K. CantwellDelray Beach, Fla.To the Editor:The latest polls showing President Biden losing support from minority and youth voters should prompt leading Democrats to urge him not to seek a second term. It’s time for a high-level delegation, including Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, to visit the White House for a reality check.Yes, Joe Biden is a patriotic American and a good president. But the specter of Donald Trump back in the Oval Office demands that he step aside and pass the torch to preserve our democracy.Judith BishopMiami BeachTo the Editor:Your article about the latest poll was frightening but not surprising. How many times and in how many ways does the leadership of the Democratic Party have to be told that President Biden is unpopular?Are they backing him because, according to the book, an incumbent is more electable than a challenger? Are they relying on the fact that Mr. Biden defeated Donald Trump in 2020? If so, they need to take another look at that election.I am a lifelong Democrat surrounded by the same, but neither I nor any of my friends voted for Mr. Biden; we all voted against Mr. Trump. That may not be enough in 2024.It’s entirely possible that many of the people I know — and large sections of the electorate — won’t vote at all. And very few of us have the energy and enthusiasm it takes to campaign effectively.Claudia Miriam ReedMcMinnville, Ore.To the Editor:“Why Biden Is Behind, and How He Could Come Back,” by Nate Cohn (The Upshot, nytimes.com, Nov. 5), misses a critical point.It seemingly assumes that any Biden loss of voter support from 2020 will only move to the Donald Trump column. I believe there is an increasing possibility that a significant portion of any Biden losses will instead go to a third party. Not since Ross Perot in the 1992 election have I perceived such support for a viable third-party candidate.The No Labels movement seems to be making genuine progress and gaining increasing public awareness, if not outright support.While the Democrats are panicking that any gain in No Labels support will come from their candidate, I’m not so sure, as there is evidence that Mr. Trump’s numbers may be just as affected, if not more.Mr. Cohn should start digging deeper into the third-party movements and their likely impact on the election outcome.Kenneth GlennLangley, Wash.Reducing I.R.S. Funding Kenny Holston/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Holding National Security Hostage to Help Tax Cheats,” by Paul Krugman (column, Nov. 3):As usual, Mr. Krugman provides a valuable perspective on an important initiative with serious policy as well as economic implications. I believe that there is a longer-term goal that the Republicans are serving by a proposed reduction in funding for the I.R.S. in addition to protecting tax cheats and suspect enterprises.Part of the funding for the I.R.S. is also scheduled to be used for major upgrades in equipment and staffing so that the I.R.S. operates more efficiently and effectively, including being available to answer questions and assist ordinary taxpayers.By reducing the funding for the I.R.S., the Republicans are deliberately undermining improved, consumer-helpful government services so that ordinary taxpayers (and voters) become increasingly frustrated with, and resentful or angry at, the I.R.S.Sowing and fertilizing dissatisfaction with government services among the voting populace appear to be a “growth industry” for the Republicans in Congress.David E. JoseIndianapolisHealth Insurance, Simplified Haik AvanianTo the Editor:Re “It’s Just This Easy to Lose Your Health Insurance,” by Danielle Ofri (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 31):Dr. Ofri rightly condemns the “illogical patchwork of plans and regulations” of the American health care system.The solution, as Dr. Ofri suggests, is to make fundamental health insurance automatic for all Americans, allowing them to opt out but not requiring them (as happened to Dr. Ofri) to opt in.Paul SorumJamaica Plain, Mass.The writer is professor emeritus of internal medicine and pediatrics, Albany Medical College. More