This is a response to Gary's reference in the infamous "Beat Up Spouse" thread below. Reference to "spousal abuse". I prevailed in a 2012 innocent spouse application in 2012 and ran into the provision for "spousal abuse". Although my client did not claim spousal abuse, I wondered why the provision existed, as it had nothing to do with scienter of taxes or income.
Furthermore, I don't know any spouse (or ex-spouse) who could not claim they were "abused." Even muscle-bound athletic men can claim "mental abuse" by nagging wives, as unlikely as one might may think. Courts are full of "mental abuse" claims even without physical abuse.
The issue is whether IRS is being forced to knuckle-under to the politically correct police. We see increasing allowances for "children in low-income homes" even extended to encompass non-natural children. [I'm telling you, if you ever want to pass legislation, just get the media to tell everyone it is "for the children." Works every time]
Battered women. Battered children. Personally, although I don't support beating of children, I am just as concerned about battered elderly parents and firmly believe as often as not, some children old enough to know right and wrong oughta be took out behind the barn.
What about illegal aliens? Guess who is the latest group of "exempt employee" for purposes of the employer mandate? If you don't know by now, it is the 5 million illegal aliens allowed to stay and not be deported.
On the horizon is the MFJ status of same-sex couples. Personally (whether I agree with same-sex marriages or not), I don't believe civil rights should be withheld from these cohabitants, and that would include MFJ filing status. Regardless of how any of us feel, this politically-correct issue needs only final ratification from our court system.
And by-the-way, the very politically-INcorrect Tea Party applications were sat on and not processed by the IRS.
And audit fraudulent EIC perpetrators? No, it is easier to penalize the people who prepare their returns. No politically-correct errors in sparing low-income citizens, right?
These may be some emotion-laden social issues which are not really appropriate for this forum, and I'm not soliciting any comments about these social topics, but the issue is really how the IRS is going to handle the pressure from the rest of government and society in general.
How much more socio-economic embrace can we predict in coming years for the IRS?
Furthermore, I don't know any spouse (or ex-spouse) who could not claim they were "abused." Even muscle-bound athletic men can claim "mental abuse" by nagging wives, as unlikely as one might may think. Courts are full of "mental abuse" claims even without physical abuse.
The issue is whether IRS is being forced to knuckle-under to the politically correct police. We see increasing allowances for "children in low-income homes" even extended to encompass non-natural children. [I'm telling you, if you ever want to pass legislation, just get the media to tell everyone it is "for the children." Works every time]
Battered women. Battered children. Personally, although I don't support beating of children, I am just as concerned about battered elderly parents and firmly believe as often as not, some children old enough to know right and wrong oughta be took out behind the barn.
What about illegal aliens? Guess who is the latest group of "exempt employee" for purposes of the employer mandate? If you don't know by now, it is the 5 million illegal aliens allowed to stay and not be deported.
On the horizon is the MFJ status of same-sex couples. Personally (whether I agree with same-sex marriages or not), I don't believe civil rights should be withheld from these cohabitants, and that would include MFJ filing status. Regardless of how any of us feel, this politically-correct issue needs only final ratification from our court system.
And by-the-way, the very politically-INcorrect Tea Party applications were sat on and not processed by the IRS.
And audit fraudulent EIC perpetrators? No, it is easier to penalize the people who prepare their returns. No politically-correct errors in sparing low-income citizens, right?
These may be some emotion-laden social issues which are not really appropriate for this forum, and I'm not soliciting any comments about these social topics, but the issue is really how the IRS is going to handle the pressure from the rest of government and society in general.
How much more socio-economic embrace can we predict in coming years for the IRS?
Comment