Oddly enough, we agree about some of the big issues. I'd love to see the tax system move fundamentally away from income towards transactions.

Unfortunately, there's not much point in discussing it with you.

To wit:

When a system is setup to operate in an immoral way (As I assert the IRS is,...

It's been a long time since I was in school on a debate team but I've never forgotten that whoever defines the terms usually wins. You define the job that IRS does and the statutes it enforces as evil. Period.

If, for the sake of this discussion, we accept that definition, then it is of course true that everything the agency does is evil, I've done evil, and every interaction I've had with taxpayers has resulted in me taking action the founders would reject.

To work oneself into a murderous frenzy and live with the consequences of your own hate, it's necessary to convince yourself that the other guy is evil. Where the IRS is concerned, you've accomplished that. Nothing I can say will change your mind.

Good luck in your efforts to revise our tax laws. I agree with much of your goals and, less fervently (obviously) with much of your way of thinking. It would not, however, be productive to continue a conversation with someone who simply dismisses everything I say because they believe I'm evil.

No nuance. Just, in your words and typography, "PURE EVIL". That's not something to which a cogent response is possible.

Just out of curiosity, who would stand up for you [the IRS]? It's certainly hard for me to imagine any situation where the IRS is in any way helpful or positive. I mean, is there anybody who can say, "My wife left me, she kicked me out of my house, and I got fired just before Christmas -- but the compassionate IRS agent understood and was helpfully able to forgive my debt"? I'm guessing not.

You would, apparently, be surprised.

I have personally recommended the forgiveness or suspension of debt for hundreds of people. It happens hundreds of times a day.

Are you due a big refund that's been held up for unknown reasons but you've got a huge medical bill or you're about to lose your house? I've seen case workers move heaven and earth to process transactions and get refund checks manually cut and personally delivered to people in need.

Your post is near the bottom of the list, so I'll just put this here. I've seen a bunch of responses from people who had problems. That's to be expected. The tax system is complex and screwups happen.

But I am shocked that so few people understand that the IRS reaches out to communities and prepares tax returns for free, forgives or suspends debts when people are in a bad way, and sometimes goes to extraordinary lengths to use their great power to alleviate suffering.

I could go on and on. I have, already, up-thread. But I get the feeling I'll never make a dent.

Maybe the IRS needs a better PR department more than it needs anything else.

OK, that was a joke. The truth is that the IRS does lots of wonderful things for people but is prohibited by law from talking about them. We have Disclosure Officers whose entire job is making sure nobody talks about anything they're not supposed to. We're simply not allowed to adequately defend ourselves when we're attacked in the press; it's illegal to do so.

Ultimately, then, it's the IRS that's screwed when it comes to public perception and there's nothing they can do about it.

No wonder morale is non-existent. As proud as I am of my service to my country, I'm actually glad I've retired.

In order for the IRS to function, it must violate the most basic Constitutional rights of millions of Americans (who are no longer secure in their effects and papers, and who are presumed guilty)

You have an excellent point. The problem with being secure in their effects and papers is subordinate to the presumption of guilt, so "effects and papers" is not a productive course of study.

The presumption of guilt, though, is a biggie. (Fix that and the "effects and papers" problem goes away.) Many folks who work at the IRS recognize that the presumption of innocence is turned on its head by our current tax administration system. They are not comfortable with it.

We recognize that this is the case in pretty much every country, though. The alternative is for the government to gather so much intelligence on the financial dealings of every citizen that they can make a case against anyone for tax fraud even without the cooperation of the citizen. We don't want that. That would be far more generally intrusive and have a greater chilling effect on freedom than the way things work now.

Of course, it is possible. There are people guilty of tax fraud who refuse to cooperate with their investigations. Every bit of evidence must be tracked down by the Revenue Agents, Revenue Officers, and Special Agents who work those cases. They are *extremely* expensive and difficult to make.

As a result, most tax cheats are not treated as suspects who must be assumed to be innocent. They are treated like parties to a civil contract who screwed up.

What middle course do you propose? I'm open to radical simplification of a highly progressive income tax combined with a refundable credit for poverty-level incomes. Add to that certain consumption taxes (like a VAT) and there may be a system that's simpler to administer, harder to game, and less oppressive to the people.

Or maybe I'm full of it. Again, what course do you propose?

There is simply no compatibility between the IRS and a free people and our Constitution, nor is there any way for a civilized and moral person to work for the IRS.

That's just silly. There has to be a way to collect whatever taxes are going to be collected so the existence of a tax collection agency is not incompatible with freedom and the Constitution. Now, we may both agree that the current system is substandard so let's fix it. But saying that just having a tax collection agency is incompatible with freedom and the Constitution is a ridiculous overstatement.

Further, if it's OK to collect taxes at all, then civilized and moral people may certainly work at the agency that does that work without feeling in the least bit ashamed.

Your final sentence was so hyperbolic as to render the entire rest of your post suspect. Please don't do that. You actually had a good point or two.

You screwed up and paid a price for your mistake. And you blame the IRS?

Interesting. Dumb, but interesting. And a really tough way to learn that investing in things you don't understand can cost you a bundle.

But I don't see any reason for the IRS to shoulder any of that blame.

Please share all of the times you found taxes to be inappropriate and let the citizens off the hook for paying the taxes.

I spent several years as a Revenue Officer. It was within my authority to recommend that assessed taxes be temporarily or permanently forgiven. I made exactly those sorts of recommendations hundreds of times. I can't remember a single time when my recommendation was not accepted.

I am most proud of my work with folks with HIV/AIDS. I was an Officer back in the '80s when it was a death sentence. No one reaching the end of their life in that situation deserves to have to deal with the IRS. I was personally responsible for outreach to the community and case processing for AIDS patients who owed money. I cannot remember the number of times I sat next to the bed of a dying man for hours, slowly asking all the questions needed to fill out a few forms so that I could make the letters from the IRS stop.

I can't share all the times I "ignored the programs and policies" because I didn't have to. There are programs and policies to help people who can't pay. No one goes to jail for not paying. And no one needs to feel that they're oppressed. All my taxpayers had to do was talk to me. It was my job to help them get past their problems, not make their lives miserable.

Should I tell you about the best Revenue Officer I ever knew who got cookies and Christmas presents every year from delinquent taxpayers that she had guided back to solvency? Should I tell you about the lady who pretty much hugged that RO to unconsciousness after the RO seized and sold her business because, for the first time in decades, the emotional burden of trying to make a profit from a family business that should have been shuttered long ago was lifted from her?

No Revenue Officer worth their salt just goes along with everything they are told to do. They are hired for their judgement and they're not shy about telling management when a directive "just isn't right." I've seen it more times than I can remember.

AMT is evil. Most of the Revenue Agents at the IRS would agree.

I assume your friend had adequate counsel and that an Offer In Compromise based on inability to pay with a public policy addendum failed.

I hope he gets political and gets attention with his case. Most IRS employees would love to see the AMT go away.

Yes, I see suicides as a problem. The agency is rocked every time it happens.

At the first seizure I worked on as a trainee, the couple involved committed suicide. Three of their four grown children came into the office and went over the case, in excruciating detail, with our management. They realized we did absolutely nothing wrong except add another stressor to a family situation that was already right on the edge of disaster, a situation we knew nothing about.

The fourth grown son went on Geraldo and told the world how the IRS murdered his parents.

So, yeah, I understand that suicides are a problem. That's why we had yearly suicide awareness seminars after that. That's why every phone has a form on the table next to it, one side for what to do if someone calls in a bomb threat and the other side with instructions on how to talk to someone who sounds suicidal or threatens suicide.

The IRS recognizes a responsibility and takes it very seriously. While our actual response scenarios to these cases are not made public to prevent people from gaming the system, they have been successful. AFAIK, there have been no taxpayer suicides even tangentially blamed on the IRS for over a decade.

Now, you object to a couple of my word choices. Fair enough.

I called the people who testified before the Congressional committee that had some responsibility for the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1998 "kooks and idiots". You object to that.

I say you don't remember those hearings. They brought in anyone who wanted to speak. One panel included a guy who spent quite a while telling Congress that the CIA was using weather-control machines to create droughts. Of the people who testified directly about the IRS, one specifically alleged that the IRS conducted a raid that sounded like something out of Farenheit 451. After the fact-checkers got through with him, it turned out that he was testifying about a raid that occurred at his business while he was out of the country and he was just repeating what he had been told by his family...all the while representing that he was present and exaggerating wildly.

Yeah. Kooks and idiots. I'll stand by those words.

As for "baby-eating monsters", the use of hyperbolic phrases to characterize an emotional state (i.e., people react so emotionally towards the IRS, it's as if they think we're baby-eating monsters) is a completely valid way of communicating.

I think I'll stand by that one, too.

If, on the other hand, you thought I was being literal...then I hate to break the news to you but much of that stuff you see at the movies is fiction. It didn't really happen. Likewise, people at the IRS don't really eat babies. I know that telling the difference between using literary devices to communicate the essence of a situation and making documentaries can be hard for some people, but we're willing to cut you some slack on the issue.

Oh, and by "cut you some slack", I don't mean we actually wield knives. I mean...well...Oh, I give up.

If you can find a way to change the tax system to make it easier where more people automatically comply, the loudest cheers you'll get will be from the folks at the IRS. They have to deal with the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code every day and they hate it more than anybody else.

... but the IRS deliberately cultivates that reputation. They WANT to be known as baby-eating killers,...

Yep, some employees get off on that crap. We hate those guys. They make the papers in unflattering ways that reflect on all of us.

By shortly after the beginning of this century, most of them had retired or been put on a short leash. Things are changing now...and not for the better, I'm afraid.

...the IRS has to pull something like holding day care students hostage until the parents pay the school's taxes.

Technically, that's not what happened. However, that's how it was perceived.

(What actually happened was that when parents came in to pick up their kids and drop off their payments to the school, the IRS Revenue Officer present asked them to wait while he prepared a form for each of them seizing the checks. There was a delay for anyone who cooperated which meant they were delayed in being reunited with their kids. There was nothing to stop any of them from simply saying "Get stuffed. Mail it to me. I'm taking my kid and leaving." other than their fear of authority.)

In the aftermath of that incident, every single Revenue Officer at the IRS got a special training session on "This is how you screw up public relations. Don't do anything this stupid!" That case study is actually a part of the formal training for new Officers now, along with a strong admonition that any Officer who makes the Bureau look that bad in public again is committing career suicide.

But, yeah, a lead Revenue Officer on a seizure really screwed up one time. I don't think that justifies condemning the whole agency.

One of her favorite stories was when she learned that the majority of the time, an audit occurred because the IRS's records on you didn't match, and rather than figure it out they audit you to make you figure it out.

That's a valid way of characterizing an audit. I see nothing wrong with that. If the records are screwed up, the IRS is going to have to ask you for help figuring out why the records don't seem to be in order. That's an audit.

I don't see why anybody would consider that a problem. How else would the problem get fixed? Would you prefer the IRS just guess why the records don't match up?

One of them had several (3 or 4) years in a row where his tax refund would have been miniscule, something like $10 or $20 in the black, so he didn't even bother sending in the forms. He figured he'd just let the government keep the money. The IRS responded by sending him a bill for roughly $10,000 owed, because they figured that was a nice round number to make up.

That person was an idiot. If they don't claim their deductions, they don't get them. How would the IRS know they deserved those deductions? Would you like the IRS to just guess?

Hmmmm...considering the top quote in my reply, maybe that is what you had in mind. If so, it doesn't work very well, as your anecdote makes clear.

By statutory requirement, all such letters contain an explanation. The explanation is frequently a reference to a code section and, admittedly, to most people that may make no sense. However, the explanation is always present.

Call up and ask for an explanation. Most of the people who work the phones are pretty good at turning a letter full of legal jargon into plain English. They do it all day long.

Pro-tip: Tell the person who answers the phone the form number on the bottom of the letter. There are limited number of boilerplate paragraphs that go into each numbered letter and if they know the form number, they can help you zero in on your problem double-quick.

The story of your friend needs some more details.

If a final report from a Tax Compliance Officer (the people who audit you in the office) is for a net tax increase and the taxpayer doesn't wait around, it will be mailed out for a signature. Thus, I doubt your friend; his story is very low-percentage.

Of course, there is that low percentage. If the amount is low enough, the TCO and their manager may decide to close the case with no further work (called a "Survey"; there are several sub-types) which means that they just dump it back into the central files because the cost of processing the new assessment is more than the IRS could collect.

That power-tripping you referred to? People who screw up on their taxes and get a lecture along the lines of "You did this wrong. Please don't do it again." will frequently perceive that as a power trip. The IRS looks at it as an educational opportunity.

I suspect the real truth of this story is somewhere in between.

It's part of the price you pay for a sweet government gig.

The price I paid for my sweet government gig was being paid less than half what comparable private sector employees earned. I once consulted with a group of 16 employees who worked a project for 3 years that netted the government just over $16B.

That's billion, with a "b".

Their average pay was about $60K/year plus benefits. They got no bonus for bringing in that staggering sum. That sort of treatment was normal.

My sweet gig will only pay off if I live for quite a while more, since the only advantage I have over the private sector is that I earned a small pension and decent health insurance, both of which are unlikely to be threatened because my employer goes into bankruptcy.

I had to spend 30 years behind the earnings curve to get where I am now; I wouldn't call that a "sweet gig". It was a trade-off I made with my eyes open and if I live another 20 years, it'll turn out to have been the right choice, but please disabuse yourself of the notion that there are more than a small handful of federal jobs that can accurately be termed "sweet gigs." They just don't exist.

I retired a couple of years ago from a near-30 year career with the Internal Revenue Service.

People tried to kill me on more than one occasion. Dogs were set on me more times than I can remember. A man once openly threatened to kill me, in front of witnesses, while we were standing in a courthouse hallway, on a break, during a jury selection.

People comitted suicide from dealing with us even when doing so made no sense; they simply let their ignorant fears of the Big Bad put them in a bad place, mentally.

When a parade of kooks and idiots testified to Congress in 1998 that we were all baby-eating monsters, NO ONE stood up for us. Horrific legislation that left the agency permanently hamstrung resulted.

Over the last 3 decades, the IRS has actually deserved about 1% of the vitriol poured out on it. Morale is a thing of the past.

Yet, still, no one stands up for the IRS. Those of us who worked there had to adapt. It's possible.

To those at the NSA who are just awakening to the new reality that people are, now and forevermore, going to hate you whether you deserve it or not, I can only say "Welcome to my world. Learn to deal with it. It'll drive you nuts if you don't."

You need an external DA converter that uses DSD to convert to analog, but that can accept PCM.

Maybe I'll buy one some day. For now, though, I don't want to buy new hardware. I like my Schiit Loki. That DAC, however, will only accept DSD files. Whatever I feed it must come to it via DoP.

So if I want to play my FLAC files, I'll need a player that converts PCM to DSD on the fly then sends that file to the DAC via DoP.

As for audio pebbles, I haven't tried them. My initial reaction is that they probably wouldn't work so I haven't tried them. However, if you have some good experimental data point me to it. Otherwise, I'll pass. Audiophilia nervosa is not a disease I intend to contract.