The
IRS has just released its FISCAL YEAR 2011 ENFORCEMENT AND SERVICE RESULTS.
The
total “examination” results are as follows –
Income
Under $200,000 = 1.02%
Income
$200,000 and higher = 3.93%
Income
$1 Million and higher = 12.48%
The
number of examinations for those with income under $200,000 is down from the
previous fiscal year, but the other two categories are up.
However
the number of examinations, or audits, is made up of two components – field audits
and correspondence audits. While the
report does not offer any introductory comments or explanation, I assume that
the correspondence audit component represents the CP 2000 and similar notices,
which are handled my mail or a phone call, while the field audits are the
actual office audits.
Looking
at the individual components, just under .0023 (less than ¼ of 1%) of taxpayers
with income under $200,000 were subject to field audits, and only 1.76% of
those with income of $200,000 and higher.
The
report did show an increase in field audits in all categories – approximately 29,000
more for under $200,000, 20,000 more for $200,000+, and 4,000 more for $1
Million and over.
I
was surprised to learn that correspondence audits were down in the under
$200,000 category. It had seemed to me I
was dealing with more CP-2000s than in past years.
So
the chances of most of my clients being called for a “sit down” audit at the
IRS office is less than ¼ of 1%, as it has been for a while now.
In
practice, of the over 10,000 returns I have prepared over the years I can count
the number of actual sit down audits I have had to deal with on the fingers of
my two hands – so my audit rate is less than 1/10 of 1%.
I
would be curious to see the numbers for taxpayers with incomes under $100,000.
Does
anyone know if the “income” referred to in the study is gross income, AGI, or
net taxable income?
TTFN
I just saw this report myself and found it very interesting. It doesn't specify what they mean by income, but I looked back at some earlier years' reports (2004-2007)that included text and it seemed they were referring to gross income because they were talking about how much taxpayers were earning.
ReplyDelete