The IRS fails miserably at providing adequate taxpayer services, according to the National Taxpayer Advocate's 2022's Annual Report to Congress. NTA's report details numerous problems with the IRS's taxpayer services including that taxpayers face significant challenges reaching the IRS and that the IRS’s digital communications tools are too limited.

Importantly, these problems pre-dated the coronavirus pandemic.  

As the report notes, taxpayers face significant challenges reaching IRS employees. The NTA notes that only 11 percent of calls were answered by a real person. In March of 2020, only 4 percent of calls were answered: 

“During fiscal year (FY) 2021, the IRS received a record 282 million calls. Of those calls, 32 million, or 11 percent, were answered by CSRs…  

The Level of Service (LOS) for the Accounts Management (AM) phone lines fell as low as four percent in March when Congress enacted sweeping legislation favorably impacting taxpayers’ 2020 taxes. Calls were not answered, leaving taxpayers wondering how the new legislation impacted their tax returns. In 2021, taxpayers experienced significant challenges while LOS fell to an all-time low.” 

The IRS has been incapable of keeping up with phone calls for decades.  

In 2013, NTA’s Nina Olson said that IRS customer service had not improved since 1998. "No, we don't have improved customer service," she said. Olsen was a community tax law project organizer during the IRS reform efforts, and was even invited to testify before the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee in 1997 and before the Finance Committee in 1998. 

In 2015, the IRS "courtesy disconnected" 8.8 million taxpayers, according to the National Taxpayer Advocate. “Courtesy disconnects,” is a term used by the IRS itself, a practice in which the agency hangs up on taxpayers when wait times are long.

The report also notes that IRS digital tools are limited, making communication with the agency unnecessarily difficult. As report notes:  

“Despite its progress, the IRS has yet to develop and adopt a one-stop solution for online and digital offerings that combines communications and interactions with individual and business taxpayers as well as with tax professionals who represent these taxpayers... Imagine what the IRS can accomplish and how much time and effort it could save if taxpayers could easily access their tax information online. The National Taxpayer Advocate wants to stop imagining this; the IRS needs to have robust online accounts available for all taxpayers and their representatives.” 

Advancement in digital tools, the report suggests, could be done with the IRS’s existing resources:  

“The IRS needs to balance budget restrictions, use of existing resources, and taxpayer needs for each implementation.” 

Again, these are not new issues. In past years, the IRS failed to improve communication issues. Congress passed the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98), which sought to solve these issues. As the 2021 NTA report notes, “However, more than 20 years later, the IRS still has not meaningfully implemented this provision regarding its correspondence audit programs.” 

Unfortunately, the agency has little regard for improving taxpayers’ experience working with the IRS. In fact, many IRS employees prefer to be hard to reach. One 2012 NTA blog outlines how Tax Examiners can simply disregard taxpayer cases because they know taxpayers may not be able to follow up on promised actions: 

“No one employee must follow up on his or her actions or decisions with respect to a case or speak with the taxpayer about those decisions. Thus, it becomes easier for Tax Examiners to reduce taxpayers to mere paper to be processed or calls to be answered. In turn, it is easier to be careless or to succumb to the pressure to move on to the next case because Tax Examiners know the taxpayers will not be able to reach them again to follow up on promised actions.” 

While the IRS insists all these problems are a result of a lack of funding, it is evident that each problem existed well-before any IRS budget cuts or COVID complications. The problem is not funding, but the way the agency is organized and run.    

In the Democrats socialist spending bill, $44.9 billion would have gone directly towards enforcement. The agency would have received a comparatively meager $1.93 billion in funding for taxpayer services, which would be spread thin between pre-filing assistance and education, filing and account services, and taxpayer advocacy services. 

The NTA’s Annual Report to Congress reiterates what most Americans already know: the IRS is woefully inadequate at doing its job, even when it has all the resources it needs.

President Biden’s first year in office has been disastrous.   

He has been responsible for severe inflation and the demise of American energy independence, but has also pushed harmful policies such as supersizing of the IRS, the largest tax hike since 1968, and socialized healthcare.  

Below are five things you should know about Biden’s first year in office:  

1) Inflation Surged to Its Highest Levels in 40 Years  

Inflation has surged across the country due to out-of-control government spending, the administration’s policy of paying Americans not to work, and supply chain issues. In December, the consumer price index increased by 7 percent on an annualized basis, a 40-year high. This marked a steep increase from January 2021 when annual inflation was at a stable 1.4 percent. 

Rampant inflation is harming Americans across the country. The average U.S. household spent $3,500 more in 2021 due to inflation, according to a Penn Wharton University of Pennsylvania Budget Model analysis.      

Low-income households were disproportionately harmed. In the past year, the bottom 20 percent spent $309 more on food, $761 more on energy, $476 more on shelter, $390 on other commodities, and $224 on other services.   

Not only is inflation increasing household costs for consumers, but it could also have long lasting economic damage by eroding purchasing power. This is especially alarming given that wages are decreasing - real average hourly earnings dropped by 2.4 percent on an annualized basis in December.   

According to a Gallup poll, 71 percent of low-income households have reported experiencing financial hardship due to rising prices. Of the 71 percent, 28 percent of low-income households say they have experienced “severe hardship” due to rising prices, and 42 percent say they have experienced “moderate hardship.”     

Since July, the Biden administration has been insisting this problem would go away. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen described this inflation as "transitory." Clearly, those claims have not held up.  

2) $3.5 Trillion Tax Hike, The Largest Tax Increase Since 1968  

President Biden called for $3.5 trillion in tax increases in his 2022 budget proposal, the largest tax increase since 1968.  

In nominal dollars, Biden’s $3.5 trillion tax increase would have been the largest in history. But even when comparing this tax as a percentage of the economy, this tax hike would be the largest in more than 50 years. While Democrats claimed this tax increase would fall on “the rich," the proposal would have raised taxes on small businesses and working families at a time when they were most vulnerable. 

Biden’s proposal included the following harmful tax increases:  

• Raising the Federal Corporate Income Tax to 28 Percent. After accounting for state corporate taxes, Biden would give the U.S. a 32 percent corporate rate, a tax rate significantly higher than communist China’s 25 percent tax rate. This tax increase would harm working families, as a significant portion of this tax, about 70 percent, is borne by workers in the form of lower wages and lost jobs. Additionally, the tax would be felt by consumers, as 31 percent of the corporate tax falls on consumers through higher prices.
    
• Retroactive Tax Increases on Capital Gains and Dividends. President Biden proposed doubling the capital gains tax rate. Under Biden, the average top capital gains rate will be 48.8 percent after state taxes. The retroactive nature of this proposed tax would cause anxiety and uncertainty, ultimately leading to substantial economic damage. This tax hike would result in severe double taxation, would reduce retirement savings, would suppress investment, and could even reduce federal tax revenue.
    
• Creating a Second Death Tax by Repealing Step-Up in Basis. Biden proposed the creation of a second Death Tax by repealing step-up in basis. This would impose the capital gains tax (which Biden has proposed raising to 43.4 percent) on the unrealized gains of every asset owned by a taxpayer when they die and will be imposed in addition to the existing 40 percent Death Tax.  This would create new complexity for many taxpayers, forcing predominantly family-owned businesses to downsize and liquidate assets, leading to fewer jobs, lower wages, and reduced GDP.
    
• Increasing the Top Income Tax Rate to 39.6 Percent. This tax increase would have hit small business that are organized as sole proprietorships, LLCs, partnerships, and S-corporations. These “pass-through” entities pay taxes through the individual side of the tax code. Of the 26 million businesses in 2014, 95 percent were pass-throughs. Pass-through businesses also account for 55.2 percent, or 65.7 million of all private sector workers. More than half of all pass-through income would have been taxed at this new, higher rate.
    
• Imposing a 15 Percent Minimum Tax on “Book Income.” This tax increase would create a new minimum tax on American businesses and disallow important, bipartisan credits and deductions that help promote job creation and economic growth.
    
• Imposing Global Tax Hikes That Will Make American Business Uncompetitive. Biden proposed modifying the Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) regime and imposing a global minimum tax on American businesses of up to 26.25 percent. This proposal was significantly higher than the 15 percent global minimum tax rate that Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is pushing to get adopted by the G-20 and the OECD. This would impose double taxation on American businesses and make it difficult for them to compete against foreign companies. 

3)  Proposed Doubling the Size of the IRS, Enabling IRS to Snoop on Americans’ Bank Accounts  

Biden proposed $80 billion in additional funding to the IRS, adding a whopping 87,000 new IRS agents – enough to fill Nationals Park twice. Biden’s proposal also included a provision enabling the IRS to track any bank account, credit union account, or third-party payment account (like Venmo, PayPal, and CashApp) exceeding gross inflows and outflows of $600.   

In the Democrats’ latest, house-passed version of the reconciliation bill, funding for audits, investigations, and other tax enforcement was 23 times greater than funding for taxpayer education and assistance. Out of nearly $80 billion in new IRS funding, $44.9 billion, more than half, would go directly towards enforcement. The agency would receive a comparatively meager $1.93 billion in funding for taxpayer services, which include things like pre-filing assistance and education, filing and account services, and taxpayer advocacy services.  

The bill would result in 1.2 million more annual IRS audits; about half will hit households making less than $75k. This is because, despite the Left’s claims that heightened enforcement would be directed solely towards “the rich,” the wealthy and large corporations already have armies of lawyers and accountants that ensure they are compliant with the tax code.  

Instead, the IRS will go after easier targets to find additional tax revenue: small businesses and low- and middle-income individuals.   

The agency has a long history of harassing taxpayers, discriminating against political adversaries, violating taxpayer privacy, and incompetence. 

The administration’s proposed reporting regime would be a radical violation of privacy, would unleash the IRS’s harassment on virtually every American, and would disproportionately hurt low- and middle-income Americans.

4) Assault on American Energy Development 

In the past year, President Biden president signed an executive order banning new drilling leases on federal lands, pursued more than $20 billion in new energy taxes on oil and natural gas production, and vetoed permitting for the Keystone XL pipeline here at home. At the same time, his administration lobbied Congress to oppose sanctions on the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

After one year of President Biden's failed presidency, Americans now face the highest gas prices since 2014, surging home-electricity prices, and increased reliance on oil from adversarial nations. 

President Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline had several negative impacts on jobs, energy, and geopolitics. For starters, stopping the project killed about 11,000 jobs in 2021, including the thousands of construction jobs for rural and Indigenous communities the pipeline was on track to create. Additionally, canceling the pipeline ultimately damaged a more efficient, environmentally friendly way to transporting oil. In fact, Keystone XL had committed to the pipeline being fully powered by renewable energy.  Importantly, Biden's policy also cheated Americans out of cheaper, more accessible energy. If completed, the Keystone XL Pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil from Canada through multiple states, where it would eventually reach Texas oil refineries, delivering savings to American families. Finally, killing the pipeline wasted billions of dollars in investments. TC Energy Corporation estimated an investment of more than $1.7 billion into communities, including $100 million in new property tax revenue and thousands of new middle-class jobs for both low and high-skilled workers.   

In addition to killing the pipeline, the Biden administration also attempted to issue a ban on new leases to drill for oil and gas on public lands – an effective fracking ban on federal lands. Thankfully, a federal judge blocked this order from going into effect. If it had, it would have empowered foreign adversaries, like Russia, dwindled Americans’ access to energy, and increased energy costs at a time when gasoline prices have already skyrocketed by 49.6 percent.     

The Democrats’ multi-trillion-dollar tax and spend bill, which Biden spent the year championing, included an $8 billion energy tax on methane from natural gas production and a $13 billion tax on crude oil, taxes that would be paid by American households in the form of higher energy bills.  

Under the Biden Administration, Russia is now supplying more oil to the U.S. than any other foreign producer besides Canada. The Biden Administration went as far as lobbying Congress to vote against sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline, sanctions that were supported by 55 Senators including 6 Democrats. 

President Biden’s blows to the American energy sector hurts our energy independence and empowers foreign adversaries like Russia. These policies threaten Americans’ access to affordable energy, the U.S. economy, and national security.   

5) Pushed for Socialized Healthcare  

Biden’s proposal would have imposed drastic price controls on American medical innovation. Specifically, his proposal would have created a 95 percent excise tax on manufacturers who did not agree to socialist price controls. This means that a manufacturer selling a medicine for $100 would owe $95 in tax for every product sold with no allowance for the costs incurred. No deductions would be allowed, and it would be imposed on manufacturers in addition to federal and state income taxes they must pay.   

This proposal would have led to 167 to 324 fewer new drugs, according to an issue brief by Tomas J. Philipson and Troy Durie at the University of Chicago. These results are severe, but not surprising. After all, this proposal would arbitrarily set the price of medicines similar to the way other countries with socialized health systems have.  

Countries that utilize socialist price controls have lower access to care. For instance, Canadian patients wait an average of 19.8 weeks from referral to treatment. In the UK, at any one time, 4.5 million patients were waiting to see a doctor or receive care. By comparison, 77 percent of Americans are treated within four weeks of referral, while just 6 percent wait more than two months.   

Further, Americans have access to far more medicines than other countries. According to research by the Galen Institute, 290 new medical substances were launched worldwide between 2011 and 2018. The U.S. had access to 90 percent of these cures. By comparison, the United Kingdom had access to 60 percent of medicines, Japan had 50 percent, and Canada had just 44 percent.   

Additionally, this proposal would have threatened high-paying manufacturing jobs across the country at a time when we were just emerging from the economic wreckage from the pandemic. According to a 2017 study by TEConomy Partners, pharmaceutical manufacturers invest $100 billion in the U.S. economy every year, directly supporting 800,000 jobs including jobs in every state. These jobs are high-paying – the average compensation is $126,000 – more than double the average wage in the U.S. When accounting for indirect and induced jobs, medical innovation supports more than four million jobs.   

In trying to be more like foreign countries with socialist policies, Biden was willing to restrict Americans’ access to life-improving and life-saving medicines and threaten much-needed, high-paying American jobs. 

In an op-ed published in American Banker today, ATR Federal Affairs Manager Bryan Bashur highlights the importance of providing regulatory relief and flexibility for financial institutions as they transition away from using the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) as a gauge for how much interest to charge on certain financial products. Trillions of dollars in contracts for mortgages, credit cards, bonds, student loans, futures, swaps, and options, will all feel the effects of this transition. As Bashur explains:

It is imperative that the United States government implement regulatory relief, emphasize flexibility and develop concrete guidelines for financial institutions so they can easily adapt to the changing interest rate landscape. As banks and other financial institutions rewrite contracts for mortgages, credit cards, bonds, student loans and financial derivatives to adjust to fluctuating interest rates, the federal government needs to ensure that the tax burden is limited and litigation is mitigated.

According to the Congressional Research Service, as of the end of 2020 Libor was referenced in over $220 trillion financial instruments denominated in U.S. dollars, including mortgages, student loans, bonds, derivatives and more. PwC estimates that Libor is tied to as much as $350 trillion “in bonds, loans, derivatives and securitizations worldwide.” The aggregate gross domestic product for all the economies in the world pales in comparison ($84.68 trillion in 2020) to the amount of financial products connected to Libor.

As LIBOR is phased out and new benchmark interest rates will be widely adopted, it is imperative that banks and other financial institutions are able to use reference rates that best suit their products and the customers they serve. As Bashur points out:

However, regulators should emphasize flexibility and allow financial institutions to use benchmark rates that best suit their customers. Benchmarks such as the American interbank offered rate (Ameribor) and the Bloomberg Short Term Bank Yield Index (BSBY) are credit-sensitive and “provide a more accurate reflection of lenders’ funding costs.”

Enabling lenders to choose among a host of different rates will lead to more innovative financial products and could increase capital disbursement to borrowers.

Some long-term financial contracts that use LIBOR do not include plans for how to adjust the terms when LIBOR is fully discontinued. However, Congress is working on legislation to provide a more concrete framework to ease the transition. Bashur states that:

Federal regulators also need to ensure that bonds or other contracts that extend beyond 2021 and do not include contingency plans for the Libor transition are able to avoid costly litigation, which would harm both lenders and borrowers.

Fortunately, Congress is working on a bill to provide a federal framework to allow these longer-term contracts to easily transition to new reference rates. Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., introduced HR 4616, the Adjustable Interest Rate (Libor) Act of 2021, to provide a framework to ease financial institutions away from Libor for contracts that lack explicit language explaining how borrowers and lenders can transition their contract from Libor to a new reference rate. The federal framework would preempt any cumbersome patchwork of state laws that could inhibit a streamlined transition for financial contracts that cross state lines.

HR 4616 garnered strong bipartisan support and passed the House by a vote of 415-9. It is highly likely that the Senate will introduce a bipartisan bill identical or nearly identical to Rep. Sherman’s bill and pass it with little consternation.

One example of regulatory relief during the LIBOR transition is a rulemaking the IRS published that exempts financial contracts from capital gains tax if the terms of the contract are amended to reflect the change in benchmark interest rates. Bashur elaborates that:

The IRS concludes in the draft rule that the exemption from capital gains tax applies “to both the issuer and holder of a debt instrument and to each party to a nondebt contract.”

Accordingly, the final rulemaking would preserve the tax exemption and avoid the negative implications of imposing the burdensome capital gains tax on borrowers and lenders during the Libor transition. Application of a capital gains tax to mortgages and student loans in this scenario is unnecessary and erroneous.

Bashur urges Congress and federal regulators to continue the stream of regulatory relief “so that both lenders and borrowers can avoid costly litigation, burdensome taxation and illiquidity.”

Click here to read the full op-ed.

The Indiana House Committee on Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development will be considering legislation that would impose a first in the nation price control on nonalcoholic beverages. House Bill 1109, if implemented, would prevent distributers of packaged nonalcoholic beverages with a weight volume of 8 ounces or more from offering seasonal promotions and other discounts to Indiana retailers unless they are extended to every store in the state. 

Despite the good intentions behind this bill, it would inflict a great deal of harm on the state economy. “Allowing the government to meddle into negotiations between private businesses in order to impose price controls would actually result in fewer discounts being available, driving prices up and leaving families across Indiana to face higher costs at a time when they can least afford it,” warned Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, in a letter to committee members. “Many of these households along state lines could decide to instead visit stores in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, or Ohio, hurting Indiana’s small businesses and their employees.”

To read the full letter, click here.

__

January 18, 2022

To: Members of the Indiana House Committee on Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development

From: Americans for Tax Reform

Re: Oppose House Bill 1109

Dear Representative,

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and our supporters across Indiana, I urge you to oppose House Bill 1109, legislation that would jeopardize the right to private contract in order to impose price controls on certain nonalcoholic beverages. If implemented, this bill would inflict a great deal of harm on small businesses and consumers across the Hoosier State.

Under the status quo, all Indiana retailers, from small convenience stores to large chain grocery stores, can negotiate their preferred contract terms with the nonalcoholic beverage industry. This flexibility allows retailers to benefit from seasonal promotions and other price discounts that can be passed onto consumers, ultimately making their stores more competitive than those in surrounding states.

This free-market approach is not unique to Indiana, but is the standard practice used by all retailers and the nonalcoholic beverage industry nationwide. Unfortunately, HB 1109 seeks to disadvantage Indiana retailers by making it illegal for distributers of packaged nonalcoholic beverages with a weight volume of 8 ounces or more to offer special pricing deals in Indiana unless they are extended to every store in the state.

Despite the good intentions behind this bill, it would actually result in a number of negative consequences for the local economy. Allowing the government to meddle into negotiations between private businesses in order to impose price controls would actually result in fewer discounts being available, driving prices up and leaving families across Indiana to face higher costs at a time when they can least afford it. Many of these households along state lines could decide to instead visit stores in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, or Ohio, hurting Indiana’s small businesses and their employees.

Adding insult to injury, HB 1109 would also drive new investment, jobs, and opportunities away from Indiana. Why would a CEO in any industry want to do business in a state that is known for undermining the right to private contract and has the unwelcome distinction of being the only state in the country to impose price controls on nonalcoholic beverages? There are plenty of other states with lower tax rates that are much less hostile to businesses.

ATR opposes HB 1109 and urges lawmakers to vote NO.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform