Taxes Blog

Finance Blogs » Taxes » Cutting out costly tax breaks

Cutting out costly tax breaks

By Kay Bell · Bankrate.com
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Posted: 4 pm ET

When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney uttered those now infamous words about 47 percent of Americans seeing themselves as victims, depending on government assistance and paying no taxes, a part of that group includes folks who receive refundable tax credits.

A new examination of these tax breaks by the government watchdog office charged with keeping an eye on the Internal Revenue Service has found that lax controls over refundable tax credit claims have cost the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars.

Tax credits reduce the amount of tax you owe. If your tax liability is $500 and you can claim a $500 credit, your tax bill is zeroed out. Refundable credits, as their name indicates, can provide a taxpayer with a refund even if the filer didn't owe any taxes; for example, a $700 refundable tax credit combined with a $500 tax bill will get that taxpayer a $200 check from Uncle Sam.

When people, and by people I mean candidates during an election year, talk about abuse of the tax code, they tend to focus on refundable credits, most often the earned income tax credit, or EITC. This tax credit was designed to help low-income working families recover some of the bite that FICA taxes take out of their relatively small paychecks.

But because the EITC is one of the more complicated tax credits to claim, and because it can produce a refund, it is also susceptible to fraud.

The Treasury inspector general for tax administration, or TIGTA, recently conducted an investigation into the Internal Revenue Service's handling of refundable credit claims, specifically the EITC and the associated additional child tax credit, and found that the agency needs to exercise greater control over refundable credits.

During tax years 2006 through 2009, according to the TIGTA report, taxpayers claimed almost $470 billion in refundable credits. But IRS examination of those claims after the refunds were issued found that the agency issued an estimated $2.3 billion in erroneous credits.

By the end of December 2011, reports TIGTA, the IRS had recovered around $1.3 billion of that mistakenly refunded money, most of that collected through refund offsets, that is, reducing the taxpayers' subsequent tax refunds. And it's a safe bet that the IRS will not be able to get much, if any, of the rest of those incorrect tax credit refunds back.

Questionable tax breaks for all

The EITC has long been a target of some tax reformers. They argue that it's a social policy that shouldn't be enacted via the tax code.

I generally agree that using tax policy as a social policy bludgeon is not a sound way to collect the revenue that a government needs to operate.

But if we're going to ax one socially skewed tax, let's get rid of them all.

My husband and I are child-free. If others want kids, good for them. But we also aren't too thrilled that people with children get an added tax break (or two or more) thanks to the $1,000-per-child (for now) tax credit, just because they reproduced.

Then there's the refundable additional child tax credit which, as noted earlier, TIGTA also found was frequently abused by taxpayers. Folks already get exemptions for their dependent children. Why should they get more of my federal tax dollars just because they opted to follow the path of super-sized reality TV families?

And what about the implicit sanctioning of the American dream, that is, homeownership? The United States is one of the very few developed countries that provides a mortgage interest tax break to home buyers. Folks seem to be able to buy homes in other parts of the world just fine without help from their governments.

Don't forget about all the other homeownership, and second homeownership, tax breaks. Tax writers even added a new, albeit temporary, tax credit, for first-time homebuyers a few years ago. That was a total mess, causing delays in filing, myriad mistakes and downright fraud.

The hubby and I are homeowners. We've bought five homes over our 30-plus years of marriage and refinanced a couple of them. And we've gladly claimed the tax breaks for our primary residences.

But there is no good tax policy reason for such real estate tax benefits. In fact, they cost the United States millions of dollars a year. But still they are in the tax code because homeownership is a social ideal that lawmakers want to promote.

The EITC and similar tax breaks rewarding parents and homeowners are just a few of the many tax issues that must be addressed by Congress and the president, whomever he might be, in the coming months.

So maybe it's time for all of us to start thinking about how fair all these tax deductions and credits are and which ones we'd be willing to surrender.

Want the latest news on tax reform, filing deadlines, IRS alerts and tax-saving tips? Subscribe to Bankrate's free Weekly Tax Tip newsletter.

You also can follow me on Twitter @taxtweet.

«
»
Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
8 Comments
Rich
October 25, 2012 at 6:49 am

Tax breaks notwithstanding, did you ever notice that almost everyone in America that is running for political office is: either a millionaire, owns their own company or is a partner in one, or has a bucket full of money from his or her FOLLOWERS for campaign advertising. What this country needs is someone from a low income bracket, who knows what life in America is REALLY LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!
The election should be held on Holloween, then the election would be a TRICK OR TREAT FOR AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!

Autumn
October 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm

I'm really disappointed to see a skewed political opinion blog piece offered up to me in my email like a legitimate article. I guess I'm going to have to unsubscribe from the mailing list for this site and consider not visiting here if this sort of misdirected information is endorsed. The misdirection I refer to is the over simplified tax credit example in paragraph three. It creates a bias in the reader's mind that anyone that receives more than tax credit is paying nothing to the government and getting a refund instead. Which then creates a perfect forum for the author to illegitimatize any other tax credits.

Debbie
October 24, 2012 at 11:24 am

Taking away mortgage interest will
crush the housing industry.

Aleks
October 24, 2012 at 11:02 am

That's just silly. Each child increases the government's future tax revenue. That's why they allow the tax credit. It's idiotic to call it a "cost to the United States". It is actually an investnment in the future stability of the government.

Jean
October 24, 2012 at 10:01 am

Tax laws should be fair for EVERYONE! So, implement a fair, across the board tax rate. Wake up! The more citizens are dependent on money from the government, the more closely we become slaves or under a dictator. People will always need assistance but welfare should not be a life style and it is fast becoming one for so many. There should me a minimum time for a young, healthy, able-bodied person to remain on welfare. Continuing having children for which you cannot provide for should not give more welfare money to the parents. This encourages children to be brought into this world with a big handicap of proverty and welfare mentality. Drug testing must be done and violators removed from the program. Responsible working people are getting tired of supporting lazy people; not people who are truly in need. After a while, there won't be anyone paying taxes to support our country, period.

Andrey
October 24, 2012 at 9:54 am

I think just because you have no kids you shouldn't be ridiculing those that do. You should be thankful for those that do because that's the only way you'll be able to collect any social security payments, off the back of other's kids!

Sandra Bouch
October 24, 2012 at 7:52 am

You have just confirmed my suspicions about what Mr. Romney's change of wording in the first debate regarding his "revenue neutral" tax rate cut really meant. The very careful change of wording went from eliminating deductions and closing loopholes to "I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions..." Seems the loopholes for the wealthy have disappeared from the conversation altogether and have been replaced with the credits and exemptions of the poorest. 2012 Presidential Debate Transcript First Debate

It would appear the Romney Plan has morphed back to the Ryan Plan of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and the elderly and the rest of the 47% whose welfare Mr. Romney said is not his job to worry about.

I assume from your comments that it would also be okay with you to eliminate the Social Security tax exclusion and the Military Pay exemption as these could possibly also be construed as "social policy"? Why then is a capital gains tax rate of 15% preferential rate to "encourage investment" not construed as "social policy enacted through the tax code"?

As soon as I see the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy expire and the Buffett rule applied I will explore "Cutting Out Costly Tax Breaks".