Supreme Court to decide IRS Audit Time Limits

[taxea]

I am all for everyone paying their just due however, I think that if they are going to continue going back further than 3 years under any circumstances then they should allow the refund to be used (on late filings) for these purposes even if they won't refund in cash.

[S T]

Read Koss' Post

Koss' post outlined

This will not be the norm - it is only for substantial under reporting

So for that I guess so - not sure-- I don't have a decision - I hope for my client's or for potential clients there is no "substantial under reporting" Guess we have to find out what those terms are and what that actually means

For the norm - No I do not want the 6 year rule if we don't have a 6 year rule to file for "delinquent" filings and obtain refunds.

Sandy

[JohnH]

Just to keep this alive and because I sometimes like stirring the pot, I wouldn't support the 6 year rule even IF it included refunds. The downside woud be much greater than the upside.

[kpangelinan]

Extending the SOL won't help anyone, not even IRS. If it were 10 years, they would at this juncture be auditing 2001 returns instead of 2008 returns. DCAA (Defense Contract Audit Agency) has no such SOL and contracts as old as 2003 and 2004 are still being held hostage to contractors. If DCAA had a SOL they would have to "give up" and allow contracts this old.

And whatever happened to the government exempting itself from the very laws they pass for the rest of us to pass? Those of you who believe extending the SOL for the IRS and not for the taxpayer should never complain about our Congress. They exempted children of congressmen and senators from having to pay back student loans. They exempted themselves from Obamacare before it ever got off the authors' table.

Extending the SOL? If you're going to do it, do it for taxpayers as well as IRS.

When you do it for the IRS, you indirectly do it for the taxpayer as well as it's just another tool to curb fraud which increases revenue for the US (and you can fill in the blanks on how that helps the US and the economy). I'm not siding, just think that it would tip the scales for the better good over the long run. We all have our opinions on whether one part of the code makes things better or worse, but without actual data after it's passed, you really never know and can only speculate as I have.

I am all for everyone paying their just due however, I think that if they are going to continue going back further than 3 years under any circumstances then they should allow the refund to be used (on late filings) for these purposes even if they won't refund in cash.

Agreed.

Just to keep this alive and because I sometimes like stirring the pot, I wouldn't support the 6 year rule even IF it included refunds. The downside woud be much greater than the upside.

Maybe. But like I said, you just never know.