[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 102-000 deg.
CLOSING THE TAX GAP AND THE IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 27, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-288 WASHINGTON : 2005
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman
ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York
Chairman JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD,
SUE KELLY, New York California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio TOM UDALL, New Mexico
SAM GRAVES, Missouri DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
TODD AKIN, Missouri ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado DANNY DAVIS, Illinois
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire ED CASE, Hawaii
STEVE KING, Iowa MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam
THADDEUS McCOTTER, Michigan RAUL GRIJALVA, Arizona
RIC KELLER, Florida MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine
TED POE, Texas LINDA SANCHEZ, California
MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska MELISSA BEAN, Illinois
MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
J. Matthew Szymanski, Chief of Staff
Phil Eskeland, Deputy Chief of Staff/Policy Director
Michael Day, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Witnesses
Page
Everson, The Honorable Mark W., Commissioner, Internal Revenue
Service........................................................ 2
Sullivan, The Honorable Thomas M., Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
U.S. Small Business Administration............................. 5
Satagaj, Mr. John, President and General Counsel, Small Business
Legislative Council............................................ 18
Hall, Mr. Keith, CPA, Partner, Hall and Hughes................... 20
Schneier, Mr. Abraham, Abraham Schneier & Associates............. 22
Steinberg, Mr. Leonard, EA, CMC, The Steinberg Group............. 23
Hegt, Mr. Ronald, Member, American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants.................................................... 25
Appendix
Opening statements:
Manzullo, Hon. Donald A...................................... 28
Velazquez, Hon. Nydia........................................ 30
Prepared statements:
Everson, The Honorable Mark W., Commissioner, Internal
Revenue Service............................................ 34
Sullivan, The Honorable Thomas M., Chief Counsel for
Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration............... 46
Satagaj, Mr. John, President and General Counsel, Small
Business Legislative Council............................... 54
Hall, Mr. Keith, CPA, Partner, Hall and Hughes............... 58
Schneier, Mr. Abraham, Abraham Schneier & Associates......... 65
Steinberg, Mr. Leonard, EA, CMC, The Steinberg Group......... 72
Hegt, Mr. Ronald, Member, American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants......................................... 80
(iii)
CLOSING THE TAX GAP AND THE IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005
House of Representatives
Committee on Small Business
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:15 p.m. in Room
311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Donald Manzullo
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Manzullo, Kelly, Sodrel,
Fitzpatrick.
Chairman Manzullo. Good afternoon and welcome to this
hearing on a very important topic for small businesses around
the country, closing the tax gap.
There would be no tax gap without the Income Tax Code.
Interestingly, almost 92 years ago to the day and in this very
hearing room, then Ways and Means Chairman Oscar Underwood,
with the assistance of Representative Cordell Hull, reported
the first income tax out of Committee shortly after the
ratification of the 16th Amendment.
This income tax consisted of only eight pages in an 814-
page tariff bill. Today the Internal Revenue Code spans more
than 60,000 pages.
I guess maybe we can go back 92 years and back to eight
pages again. That might work.
As we sit here today, President Bush is delivering a speech
during the Small Business Administration 2005 Small Business
Expo. His speech will likely not include anything about the
topic of the hearing today.
The tax gap is something not many want to talk about, but
is nonetheless real. There is a difference between what is owed
by many taxpayers and what is actually paid to the Treasury.
The National Research Project was an effort to study the
tax gap. Using data from 2001, the study validated that there
was a big tax gap in the magnitude of $300 billion. A large
portion of this gap has been attributed to small businesses and
the self-employed.
The purpose of the hearing is to review with the
Commissioner and other witnesses where to go with this data.
Before we begin that process, it is important to point out that
the preliminary data is woefully incomplete, because it
provides no estimate of the tax gap for C corporations or flow-
through entities, such as partnerships.
The data for these entities is still from the 1980's, a
time that is far removed from the aggressive tax strategies
that many blue chip accounting and law firms developed during
the late 1990's.
While the data has some deficiencies, no one can argue that
there is not a big problem. The question becomes, ``What is the
appropriate response?''
How do we make small business taxpayers more compliant,
while at the same time minimizing the burden? Increasing
enforcement means nothing if those being policed don't
understand the laws or the nature of the violation.
While I understand the push to lower the budget deficit and
the readily available statistics that support increased
enforcement, imposing increased burdens on small businesses
through more audits cannot be the only answer.
Many times small business owners are attempting, to the
best of their ability, to comply with the complex Tax Code. It
is not that they don't want to comply. Rather, the system and
paperwork are so complex that it is difficult to comply.
No matter how many additional auditors and collection
agencies are added to the IRS, there will still be a more
pressing need to educate taxpayers about their obligations.
The IRS will never have enough resources to police everyone
and thereby enforce compliance. Small business people are not
tax experts and they face real difficulties with complying with
the tax system.
The method used by the IRS to interact with these
individuals can be the difference between success and failure.
It is much easier for a small business owner to learn how to
comply with the tax laws through taxpayer education and
outreach than the adversarial audit and collection processes.
Congress certainly needs to simplify the Code and strongly
support the President's effort to analyze and reform the
current system.
While the IRS Commissioner will not be able to stay for the
entire hearing, Kevin Brown, the Commissioner of the Small
Business Self-Employed Division and other staff will stay for
the entire hearing so that they can listen to the testimony of
the other witnesses. We appreciate that very much.
Commissioner Everson, it is a pleasure to have you here
today as well as Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Everson, you are up first.
Go ahead. I am not going to set the clock here.
[Chairman Manzullo's opening statement may be found in the
appendix.]
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK W. EVERSON, INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE
Mr. Everson. I don't think I will use too much time, sir.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
important subject of the tax gap and in particular, the portion
of the gap relating to small businesses and self-employed
individuals.
I very much appreciate your interest in and efforts to
increase compliance with the tax laws.
Simply put, the tax gap is the difference between the tax
that taxpayers should pay according to law and what they
actually pay on a timely basis.
Our research confirms that the vast majority of Americans
pay their taxes honestly and accurately, but the findings also
show that even after IRS enforcement efforts and late payments,
the government is being shortchanged by over a quarter trillion
dollars each year, because some pay less than their fair share.
People who aren't paying their taxes shift their burden to
the rest of us. In this time of budget deficits, a dollar not
received by the government becomes debt, the burden of which
will be felt by future generations.
Our research shows the gross tax gap to be between $312
billion and $353 billion. The old tax gap estimate for 2001 was
$311 billion, a figure based on studies conducted in 1988 and
earlier.
So there has been what I would term a modest deterioration
in tax compliance among individual taxpayers since the last
study was conducted in 1988.
IRS enforcement efforts, coupled with late payments,
recover about 55 billion of the total gross tax gap, leaving a
net annual tax gap of between $257 billion and $298 billion.
Current data are preliminary, so our tax gap estimates are
shown as ranges.
As refinements are made to the analyses, some estimates may
change. It is unlikely, but possible, that the final estimates
of the total tax gap will fall outside the established range.
There are two views of the tax gap: By type of
noncompliance, that is non-filing, underreporting and
underpayment and by type of tax. The new research for 2001
addresses the underreporting of income and self-employment
taxes by individual taxpayers. It is based on audits of 46,000
individual returns.
As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, the study did not address
compliance for either small or large businesses organized as
corporations.
Preliminary findings include: Underreporting noncompliance
is the largest component of the tax gap. Preliminary estimates
show underreporting accounts for more than 80 percent of the
total tax gap, with non-filing and underpayment at about ten
percent each.
Individual income tax is the single largest source of the
annual tax gap, accounting for about two-thirds of the total.
For individual underreporting, more than 80 percent comes
from understated income, not overstated deductions. Most of the
understated income comes from business activities, not wages or
investment income.
Compliance rates are highest where there is third party
reporting or withholding. For example, preliminary findings
show less than 1.5 percent of wages and salaries are
misreported.
The next stage of our research will be to finish the data
analysis and refine the tax gap data by late 2005. The IRS will
use the data to update its statistical tools for selecting
individual returns for audit.
Our tax gap research confirms two key points involving tax
enforcement and simplification. The IRS needs to enforce the
law so that, when Americans pay their taxes, they are confident
that their neighbors and business competitors are doing the
same.
At the same time, this research underscores the President's
call for tax reform. Complexity obscures understanding.
Complexity in the Tax Code compromises both the Service and
enforcement missions of the IRS.
Those who try to follow the law, but cannot understand
their tax obligations, may make inadvertent errors or
ultimately throw up their hands and say, why bother?
Meanwhile, individuals who seek to pay less than what they
owe often hide behind the Code's complexity in order to escape
detection by the IRS and pay less.
Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, enforcement activity
to close the tax gap is only part of the equation. We must also
provide good service to taxpayers to help them understand their
tax obligations.
Small businesses in particular struggle to deal with an
increasingly more complex Tax Code. We view our goals of
reducing taxpayer burden and helping small businesses
understand our very complicated and I would note ever changing
Tax Code as a cornerstone of the services we provide.
We are very cognizant of the fact that small business
owners have unique needs. In recognition of the fact that
different groups of taxpayers have different characteristics,
the IRS is currently organized around four taxpayer segments.
Our small business and self-employed operating division's
mission is to address the tax compliance needs of small
businesses and self-employed individuals through education,
outreach, assistance and where necessary, enforcement.
I was pleased to note that the NFIB, in its written
statement, observed that ``One of the lesser known successes
over the past five years has been that with the assistance of
the staff of the small business, self-employed division at IRS,
the concept of common sense rules for smaller business owners
has taken root.''
Through the small business, self-employed division, we are
able to focus on initiatives to reduce the burden of tax
compliance on small business.
For example, we recently increased the Federal Unemployment
Tax deposit threshold from $100 to $500, reducing burden for
over 2.6 million employers.
We also simplified the Schedules K-1 for partnerships and S
corporations, reducing burden by an estimated 95 million hours
for the 20 million taxpayers who file these forms.
In addition, we are actively considering allowing very
small employers to file their employment tax returns annually
instead of quarterly.
We estimate this action alone could reduce burden on
approximately one million businesses by some 50 million hours.
Finally, I would like to point out that our system of tax
administration is fundamentally one of self-assessment and
enjoys a high compliance rate.
The IRS is moving aggressively to reduce the tax gap. With
proper funding over a number of years, we will be able to close
a significant portion of the gap, but no one should think we
can totally eliminate the gap. That would take Draconian
measures and make the government too intrusive.
We have to strike the right balance. Thank you.
[The Honorable Everson's statement may be found in the
appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you, Commissioner.
Our next witness is Tom Sullivan, Chief Counsel for
Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration.
Mr. Sullivan, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. SULLIVAN, US SMALL
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving
me the opportunity to appear before the Committee this
afternoon. My name is Tom Sullivan, the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy at the Small Business Administration.
My office is an independent office within the SBA and
therefore, the comments expressed in this statement do not
necessarily reflect the position of the Administration or the
SBA.
With the Chair's permission, I would like to submit my
written statement for the record.
Chairman Manzullo. The entire written statements of all the
witnesses will be made part of the record without objection.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Office of Advocacy shares with the Commissioner the
view that the tax gap is a serious problem. The funding
shortfall is not the only problem created by the tax gap.
As National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson stated in her 2004
testimony before the Senate Committee on Finance, ``It comes
down to a simple issue of fairness.''
The fact that 85 percent of taxes are paid in full
reinforces the view that the remaining 15 percent needs to be
paid by those who owe it.
The Office of Advocacy, however, does not agree with the
view that prioritizing enforcement will necessarily close the
tax gap. We believe, like the Commissioner stated in his oral
statement, that a balanced approach, relying on a combination
of compliance, assistance, taxpayer education and enforcement,
is likely to close the gap in an efficient manner.
Most small businesses pay their taxes in full and on time.
However, doing so is never easy for them, as the cost of
complying and the difficulty in following the Tax Code can be
overwhelming.
In 2001, my office released a report on the regulatory
costs faced by small firms. That study contained an estimate of
tax paperwork compliance costs and in 2000, the typical small
business, with fewer than 20 employees, spent over $1,200 per
employee to comply with tax paperwork, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.
This is over two times the compliance costs faced by larger
firms, but the estimated burden hours for filling out forms do
not tell the whole story of how difficult compliance can be for
small business.
Most small firms do not have full-time personnel to handle
tax compliance issues. Many hire outside assistance and many
more small business owners devote valuable time to taxes that
is not then available for them to run their business.
This Committee certainly knows the contribution of small
business to the United States' economy. Small businesses make
up over 99 percent of all businesses in the United States and
employ just over half of the American workforce.
Perhaps even more importantly, small firms create over two-
thirds of the net new jobs annually and recently led the
American economy out of a recession.
Yet, small business accomplishes this even while facing a
regulatory compliance burden that is roughly 60 percent greater
per employee overall than that faced by larger firms and a tax
compliance burden more than twice as large.
At issue then is how compliance can be improved and the tax
gap narrowed without adding to the burden of small business?
My office favors a balanced approach, one that includes
commensurate doses of education, compliance assistance and
enforcement.
In order to focus its efforts, the IRS did develop the
National Research Program to measure reporting, filing and
payment compliance for different types of taxes and different
groups of taxpayers.
The final report isn't available, but IRS has published 17
pages of preliminary results. The release generated a flurry of
comments coinciding with the weeks preceding April 15, when
Federal tax filings were due.
I think that this Committee and really all the folks and
policy leaders in Washington, D.C. should be clear that these
results are preliminary.
Let me also caution that the connection between enforcement
and compliance is not necessarily clear either. Research by
economist Bruno Frey and Lars Feld suggests that excessive
enforcement can lead to less compliance.
Compliance cannot be increased only through enforcement,
but rather the more balanced approach that was mentioned by the
Commissioner and myself.
Although tax rates have declined over recent years, the
costs of complying with taxes has increased. Noncompliance is a
more subtle, hidden cost of tax complexity, but the direct
costs in time and effort to maintain the necessary records and
complete the proper forms is the more obvious direct cost.
According to OMB paperwork burden estimates, the number of
hours Americans spend on taxes has grown by 24 percent over the
last ten years.
I believe in the honesty of the majority of small
businesses and their willingness to comply with the Tax Code
and contribute their fair share.
Additional taxpayer education, compliance assistance and a
more simple Tax Code are key ingredients to increased
compliance. If small businesses are able to understand and
easily follow the rules, they probably will.
Thank you for allowing me to present these views and I am
looking forward to questions.
[The Honorable Sullivan's statement may be found in the
appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you. I guess what concerns me is
that the last IRS report done addressing the tax gap was done
in 1988. The latest update by the National Research Program
excludes C corporations and the extent to which they may be
underreporting or cheating.
Our concern here at the Small Business Committee is that if
you are talking about more enforcement and the only study that
has been done as to noncompliance or updated study as to
noncompliance are small businesses and individuals, then why
are we having enforced compliance if we don't know the extent
to which the C corporations may be ripping off the taxpayer?
That is sort of a loaded question.
Mr. Everson. No. But I am happy to explain why I think the
sequencing is what it was. This program was all laid out about
three or more years ago and the decisions taken at the time was
that this was the place to start. It wasn't a view that you
would never get to C corporations.
For the last several years, Mr. Chairman, we have
articulated four enforcement priorities that have been in the
heart of the President's budget request for more enforcement
monies. The very first element of that is to detect and deter
abusive activities by corporations, high income individuals and
other contributors to the tax gap.
The more monies that have been requested for the IRS, up to
this point for enforcement, have been largely targeted towards
abusive tax shelters, towards corporations and high income
individuals.
We can show you the rate of increase in the high income
audits that have taken place over the last several years. It
has been doubled basically in terms of the total number of
returns.
You can see what happened here was a very precipitous
decline that was coincident with the Roth hearings, the bashing
that the Service took in the 1990's. Real efforts were made to
increase services and those efforts were successful by any
measure.
But what happened was we backed away from enforcement
generally. What is happening now is a recovery of enforcement.
This is the high income piece.
Chairman Manzullo. If I could interrupt you.
Mr. Everson. Yes.
Chairman Manzullo. I accept that, but my question deals
with new energy at the IRS for increased audit, et cetera. But
the study excludes C Corporations. These could be small
businesses.
Mr. Everson. You are exactly right. Let us go to the tax
gap map if we could, Bill. The map will show you that of that
estimated gross gap of $312 to $353 billion, the corporations,
using that old methodology from the 1988 study that you talked
about and updating it for changes in economics and
demographics, the corporate piece would be about 30 billion.
Now, you are right. If you--
Chairman Manzullo. I have to interrupt you on it, because I
am concerned that there is not a new study updating the 1988
study for C corporations.
Mr. Everson. Yes.
Chairman Manzullo. As to everybody, except the C
corporations, but you are making conclusions here and you are
also going to step up your enforcement, as to those people to
whom you find are involved in the tax gap.
Mr. Everson. We knew there were problems with corporations
and we have been devoting the additional resources to that.
That has been the very top line item of the President's budget
request to get more auditors for corporations.
We have been working aggressively on that. Congress has not
provided all the money. You may know that we asked for an
additional 500 million last year. We got 50 million.
But we have been devoting more to corporations. The rough
point I would say is even if you believe that there is more
noncompliance there and I do, I am on the record repeatedly, as
you may know, to go after these areas. We are devoting more
resources to that.
Even if you look at 2001 as you indicate, there is a change
in receipts mix, by the way, too. Since 2001, receipts have
recovered for corporations. The individual rates have resulted
in income taxes going down for individuals as a portion of the
two trillion we get.
Even if you double this though, sir, in terms of the
corporate number, you get 60 or 70 billion. You are still left,
even if the total gross gap approaches 400 billion, with over
half of it coming from small business and by small businesses.
That would be the combination of the individuals with the
Schedule C, it would be the Subchapter S corps, those C corps
and as you know the C corps for small businesses and by small
businesses for C corps we say those are less than $10 million
in assets.
Those numbers have been coming down over the years. They
have been replaced by more partnerships and more S corps.
If you take all that, you are right. That number is
understated. It is no doubt understated. But still half that
gap, even if you inflated these numbers, would still be in the
small business area. So it needs to be addressed.
Chairman Manzullo. It needs to be studied before we can
enforce it.
Mr. Fitzpatrick?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Everson, thanks for your testimony
today.
Mr. Everson. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. My district is in Pennsylvania. I don't
have a lot of big businesses. We have a ton of small
businesses. We like to say in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, small
business is big business. So a lot of people are watching this.
Mr. Everson. Yes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I would be happy to report back to them. I
have a question on the tax gap. I think it was reported that
back in the 1970's the tax gap was about ten percent, but by
1984 it had risen 40 percent to about 14 percent, but by the
time President Reagan's tax cuts and his Tax Reform Acts were
fully implemented and realized, the tax gap had come back down
to below ten percent. That it was easier I guess for small
business, you could conclude, to comply--
Mr. Everson. Yes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. --with the simpler Tax Code.
Is it your belief that there is a relationship between the
tax gap and the simplification of the Tax Code and lower taxes
specifically?
Mr. Everson. Yes, absolutely, sir. I think you may have
come in after I started to give my oral statement.
I believe that what has happened here is the enforcement
has fallen off. You have to recover there and have a balanced
approach, but that the second piece of this and the President
has got it right, is a call for tax reform.
I have testified before the Tax Panel and made this very
clear. Complexity obscures understanding. There is a real
element of this where if people don't understand the law, they
make inadvertent errors. Some throw up their hands and say, why
bother?
At the same time, those who seek to avoid detection or not
comply and here you get to the Chairman's point, largely the
more sophisticated corporations who have been led into these
structures by attorneys and accountants, they profit from the
complexity.
At the IRS, we are absolute advocates of simplification of
the Code. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. How much time and effort is spent on
advocacy and education I guess is the better word? An awful lot
of small businesses get to the end of the quarter and they are
struggling. They have got to make their quarterly payment. The
resources aren't there and so some just sort of drop out of
compliance.
This is Small Business Week. I think this is financial
literacy month. What does the IRS and perhaps Mr. Sullivan,
from the SBA, can comment as well, what is the plan for a
greater education of small business on the importance of and
obvious benefits of compliance?
Mr. Everson. At this stage, what happened was, as I
indicated, the IRS, it was reorganized after these hearings in
the mid 1990's to have four business units, as well as our
criminal investigation unit. That is the bulk of the employees.
One of the units that was established was the small
business, self-employed unit, to focus on this basket of
taxpayers, if you will.
I think that that has been a successful reorganization,
because it has allowed a targeting, if you will, just along
these lines.
We have got about 400 people who work full-time. They do do
the work of education, working with practitioner groups,
working with the various organizations, if you will.
I meet from time-to-time with some of these groups as well
and we try to get the word out through publications, a whole
series of things.
I think that has been successful, frankly and made a
difference, in terms of the relationship. I quoted the NFIB's
statement in my oral remarks and I think that there is a rather
positive story here.
Now I will be clear. At this stage, because of the absolute
problem on the enforcement side, the incremental resources we
are putting into this are on the enforcement side.
The President has asked for a bump up of eight percent in
the budget. I would like to say that is supported by GAO. If
the Chairman will indulge me for just a minute, I will tell you
what GAO has said on this subject.
It says on service that the IRS has made significant
progress in improving the quality of its taxpayer services. For
example, IRS now provides many Internet services that did not
exist a few years ago and has noticeably improved the quality
of telephone services.
This opens up the possibility of maintaining the overall
level of taxpayer service but with a different menu of service
choices.
Cuts in selective services could be offset by the new and
improved services. On the other hand, they have listed
enforcement of the tax laws as one of their high risk areas.
I don't know if you are familiar with this, but every two
years they issue a list of about two dozen high risk areas for
government and what they have said on enforcement is, this is a
quote from the GAO's report, ``Given the broad declines in IRS'
enforcement workforce, IRS' decreased ability to follow up on
suspected noncompliance, the emergency of sophisticated evasion
concerns and the unknown affect of these trends on voluntary
compliance, IRS is challenged on virtually all fronts in
attempting to ensure that taxpayers fulfill their
obligations.''
``IRS'' success in overcoming these challenges becomes ever
more important, in light of the nation's large and growing
fiscal pressures. Accordingly, we believe the focus of concern
on the enforcement of tax laws is not confined to any one
segment of the taxpaying population or any single tax
provision.
Our designation of the enforcement of tax laws as a high
risk area embodies this broad concern.
So we are not suggesting we wouldn't want to do more in
services, but this is a tight fiscal situation for the country,
but the greater need frankly is in enforcement.
Chairman Manzullo. Mrs. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for speaking today. Mr. Everson, you are
talking about going out and essentially the way it is going to
read to the public, lowering the boom on small businesses.
I want you to tell me some things now that you are going to
do to make sure that if an IRS agent walks into a small
business, it isn't going to be a ``gotcha'' attitude, but it is
going to be a helpful attitude.
Our tax laws are so complex. Our small businesses are
taxed. Some people who own small businesses are taxed twice.
This is hardly fair to small businesses carrying a huge tax
load of huge tax burden in this nation. We need our small
businesses. We are creating the new jobs.
Mr. Everson. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. Tell me, sir, what you are doing to bring across
an attitude and ensure that the people who enter a small
business will be there saying, ``I am from the IRS and I am
going to help you figure out how you can do this right.''
Most people want to live by the law. Most people don't want
to evade, but they eventually throw up their hands, because it
costs small businesses much more to file than it does large
businesses. You know that, sir.
What can you tell me? How can you help me go back and tell
my small businesses that you aren't going to come in and really
just wrap the rules around their neck?
Mr. Everson. I think those are all valid points and the
first thing I would say is obviously the experience of the
1990's where there were the difficult hearings and the great
focus on the service issues. They have had a very clear effect.
First of all, the Congress wrote in a whole series of new
procedures that protect taxpayer rights. If our people get out
of line, rest assured they get into pretty significant trouble
quite quickly. So that is very important. The procedures are
different.
The second thing I would say, and this is where the
research will be very helpful, right now the audit rate is
around one percent. This is not a very high rate and when an
audit takes place, the no change rate within the audits, that
is to say what happens you go in and then do you assess tax or
not, the no change rate, where we are not assessing more tax,
it is about 12 percent.
As we update this research, it better helps us to find out,
based on what is on the return or third party information we
have received, where we should go so that we are not going into
a business that is or looking at a Schedule C return where it
doesn't look pretty likely, frankly, that there is a problem.
So that is a very important part of this as well.
Ms. Kelly. Excuse me, sir, but you really didn't answer my
question. I want to know what you in particular are doing to
tell the people when they arrive, because you have suspicion
that there may be a problem there. I was here. I voted on that
law.
Mr. Everson. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. Mr. Manzullo was here. He voted on that law.
Mr. Everson. Yes.
Ms. Kelly. What I want to know is what you are doing right
now? If you are going to push this enforcement, to make sure
that when people come in, the person from the IRS doesn't walk
in and say, ``Look I am sorry, but I have got to find
something, because they think you have hidden something?''
Mr. Everson. Sure. All I can tell you, ma'am, is that we
constantly emphasize this in our meetings with executives and
other employees that, as we rebuild enforcement, we have to pay
absolute attention to taxpayer rights and to not letting
anybody go overboard thinking that this is a license to act
inappropriately. We talk about--
Ms. Kelly. Have you ever--
Mr. Everson. I am sorry?
Ms. Kelly. Have you ever fired anybody for abusing taxpayer
rights?
Mr. Everson. We fire people all the time. I can get you
data on what happens, and I don't want to give you a precise
answer on what the history is on this. Since RRA98, what has
happened is there is a series of ten deadly sins that you wrote
into the law and there is a Committee that is below me that
looks at this.
There are things where they are automatic firings and they
bring up to me cases where they are asking for some mitigation
and typically they are not in this area. That is not an area
where we would count as a problem.
You wrote in standards where somebody might presumably be
fired for late filing their own tax return, even if it was a
refund to a return. Those are the kinds of things that are
brought to my attention, to mitigate the automatic presumption
of firing.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
Mr. Everson. Certainly.
Chairman Manzullo. I am still intrigued by the study that
is incomplete and yet the results of this incomplete study are
being used to increase enforcement upon what is apparent to be
small business people.
Let me tell you how bad this study is and why there may be
a limitations amendment to the appropriations bill to not give
you any more money for enforcement until this is taken care of.
This was a study of 45,000 taxpayers. In the general
population, six percent of the returns have a Schedule C, but
in the sample through this study, 46 percent of the returns had
Schedule C.
I can only come to the conclusion that this thing was
targeted right at the small business people. Can you or perhaps
your aide with you who did the study, explain to us why this
sampling is so grossly out of proportion to the normal people
that have, normal number of taxpayers that file a Schedule C?
Mr. Everson. Certainly, sir. If my answer is too general,
my director for research will answer that. This was intentional
and it was intentional both for high income individuals and
Schedule C filers, because of the more complexity.
Just because you over sample, it helps you make sure you
have the right results. This was looked at by GAO. GAO has
reviewed the National Research Program three times as to how it
was set up and their initial review of this in 2002, they
concluded, ``NRP's design is likely to yield the sort of
detailed information that IRS needs to measure overall
compliance, develop formulas to select likely noncompliant
returns for audit and identify compliance problems for the
agency to address. The sample is adequately sized for these
tasks'' and they go on from there.
Just because you take a larger sample doesn't mean you
don't adjust that for when you extrapolate or do the research.
That is what they are doing.
Chairman Manzullo. It still doesn't make sense. Six percent
of the general population files a Schedule C, but 46 percent of
the returns in your sample has Schedule C's. Therefore, the IRS
purposely aimed its guns at small businesses.
Mr. Everson. I don't share that assessment of that.
Chairman Manzullo. Let me ask you a question. If 46 percent
of the returns had Schedule C's attached to them, what does
that indicate to you? I mean who files Schedule C's?
Mr. Everson. I am sure you are aware there about 18 or 19
million Schedule C filers at present. So it is a big number. It
has increased to almost 15 percent of the 1040 returns.
Chairman Manzullo. Wouldn't you agree that small business
people are more likely to file a Schedule C?
Mr. Everson. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, but--
Chairman Manzullo. That is the whole point.
Mr. Everson. But it is not blown out of proportion. The
statistics they are using this to get a better handle. I would
have thought you would be happy about it, because
statistically, as I understand it, you are going to get a more
reliable projection from this.
Chairman Manzullo. I can't accept that. The sample has
seven times more people with Schedule C than the general
population.
If you are going to do a sample, you go all the way across
the breadth on it. This survey was intended and aimed at small
business people.
Mr. Everson. It was aimed at the more complex. The
overstatement was in the more--
Chairman Manzullo. Those are small business people.
Mr. Everson. Not only small business people. Not only small
business people.
Chairman Manzullo. One thing that the work has not been
done is on the C corporations. I would suggest before the IRS
lowers the hammer on going after small business people, who
have enough problems in this world, that you do your research
on C corporations so instead of extrapolated and whatever the
words that were used on there, we know exactly what is going on
with the gross tax gap. Because the resources that you are
going to take, the additional resources are going to be aimed
at those small business people and not at the C corporations.
Mr. Everson. That is not true, sir.
Chairman Manzullo. That is--
Mr. Everson. That is not what the budget request has
provided. We asked for--
Chairman Manzullo. That may be the budget request, but I
can assure you that this is the gravamen of your whole study.
It is the small business people.
Mr. Everson. We are seeking to do more in this area, but as
I say, the allocation of resources has been--
Chairman Manzullo. You know, Commissioner, allocation of
resources--I mean this is not a class in English. If you don't
have enough money, you don't have enough money. But you know
what? There isn't one agency in this city, there isn't one
Committee, there isn't one member of Congress that says I have
more than sufficient money to run my operation.
To say we don't have enough money for audits, I mean there
are what, 97,000 IRS employees?
Mr. Everson. That is about right.
Chairman Manzullo. And it is down. It is down.
Mr. Everson. It has come down because of the electronic
filing, you don't need as many--
Chairman Manzullo. Right.
Mr. Everson. --people to process returns.
Chairman Manzullo. Of that, 400 are involved in education,
is that correct?
Mr. Everson. No, sir. That is a number that is within this
business unit for the small business, self-employed piece. That
unit is maybe something like 28,000 people.
Chairman Manzullo. Okay. Mr. Fitzpatrick, do you have some
more questions?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes. I just want to get back to the issue
of how to get small businesses into compliance, those who have
fallen out of compliance and I heard the Commissioner talk
about some of the programs.
I thought maybe, Mr. Sullivan, from the Administration, you
may have--
Mr. Sullivan. I would love to respond and give the
Commissioner just a little breathing room, if I may. I think
what you have heard, Congressman, not only from me and the
Commissioner, but also GAO, the Taxpayer Advocate and the
Inspector General on April 14 on the Senate side, talked about
balance.
I think the balance has got to be based on data. That is
what the Chairman was just referring to making sure that that
data is as best possible, before directing the IRS where to
direct its resources, whether it be education or enforcement.
A problem, Congressman Fitzpatrick, is there does not seem
to be that type of data on whether or not the education, the
taxpayer education is producing compliance benefit.
Now there is positive news on this side. The Treasury IG in
his statement on April 14 does say that taxpayer education has
led to many improvements and I quote, ``Individual taxpayer
satisfaction rates with IRS have increased since the law's
passage, rising from 51 to 64 percent, between 1999 and 2004.''
If you put that type of statistical analysis on top of
economic work, like those that are contained in my written
statement by Dr. Bruno Frey, it shows that that type of
satisfaction has a direct correlation into greater compliance.
So what I think is missing in part of this balance is more
data that shows that taxpayer education is in fact working and
if better prioritized will also help fill the gap, commensurate
with increased or greater attention to enforcement.
Now that is lacking and so I am hopeful that now that
Congress has their attention on the President's budget, the
Commissioner, my office and others have already done our work
in presenting the President's budget to Congress. Now it is
your chance to look at that and how you prioritize.
I am hoping that the IRS will focus on creating data that
documents whether or not taxpayer education will fill in that
tax gap. Because as of now, aside from the IG, there really
isn't information that documents all the hard work from the
taxpayer education, whether or not it is making a positive or
negative difference.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Do you, Mr. Sullivan, have any
recommendations as to how we could get non-filers back into the
system?
Mr. Sullivan. I believe that again--
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Through education.
Mr. Sullivan. Congressman, I believe that the way to
approach the tax gap is through the balance. It is the balanced
approach. It is one, reducing the complexity and the President
has absolutely made that a priority and many of us are looking
forward to the bipartisan Tax Panel's recommendations to reduce
complexity.
I should also point out that behind the scenes there is a
division at IRS. Mr. Chessman, who heads the Office of Burden
Reduction, is behind me. They actually look at administrative
ways to reduce complexity. The Commissioner mentioned some
great success stories there.
So one is reduce complexity. Two is obviously prioritize
enforcement as an important ingredient. Three is to bring in an
equal and balanced way of taxpayer education and I think
through a balanced approach, through all of those three, you
will see the tax gap reduced.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Is there the possibility though over
reliance on the enforcement piece of the three-pronged
approached you just talked about, could have the maybe
unintended consequence of driving more small businesses
underground?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Congressman. Not only does this seem to
be the case, you know where is that fine balance between just
enough enforcement and too much?
That was detailed out by Dr. Bruno Frey in a paper that I
cite in my written statement. It does show that too much
enforcement actually does drive more folks underground.
So you would have, despite good intentions, you would have
the exact opposite consequence. So again, I will just restate
that the real key to reducing the tax gap is a balanced
approach.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Manzullo. For every one dollar in revenues that is
collected by the IRS, how much of that is represented by
employees? How much by small businesses? Then how much by large
businesses? Do you have--
Mr. Everson. Yes. The small--
Chairman Manzullo. I guess on that pie--
Mr. Everson. The IRS collects about two trillion dollars a
year. Probably, Mr. Chairman, about a quarter of that comes
from small businesses. By small businesses, I am taking that
whole family of the Schedule C filers, the 1120 filers, the S
filers, the partnership filers, that whole group.
Now what is different about this population, sir, is that
it is the mix of taxes within that total. The preponderance of
those monies that I am talking about are employment taxes. They
are not the income taxes.
If you look at the whole two trillion, employment taxes are
a little less than 40 percent or so of what is the budgeted
receipts this year, but if you look at this population that you
are concerned about, the small business population, the biggest
driver in there is in the employment tax area, where I think
that is about two-thirds of the total, sir.
Chairman Manzullo. The National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina
Olson, suggested in her 2003 annual report to Congress that
implementing non-wage withholdings, in particular, withholding
for income reported on Form 1099, by the small business people,
would greatly enhance compliance among independent contractors
and help to close the tax gap.
Same question to both of you. Do you agree this reform
would help close the gap?
Mr. Everson. I have stated, Mr. Chairman, I am not an
advocate of going down the withholding path. I just think that
it would be very burdensome and I stick by the perhaps
unpopular desire to do more in the enforcement area with those
who are noncompliant, rather than have that withholding regime,
which I think would be quite burdensome.
Chairman Manzullo. Mr. Sullivan?
Mr. Sullivan. I think the idea first stated by Nina Olson
in her annual report, then picked up by GAO and then the IG, is
absolutely the wrong way to go.
It would be a disaster for small business and
coincidentally a disaster for the economy primarily for two
reasons. First of all, the recommendation of proprietors
withholding for folks who use their premises as independent
contractors punishes the very population of small businesses
that recovered America from a recession.
So here we are after pulling ourselves out of recession,
where small businesses are literally the only entities hiring
new employees and their reward is, according to this
recommendation, you will now be responsible for withholding
from another set of taxpayers.
I think that would be a disaster and you would unbelievably
stifle the economic engine that is created by small business.
The second reason why it is a terrible idea is that it
further blends, it further blurs the distinction between
employer and independent contractor.
Now this could be a whole other Congressional hearing, and
in fact, there have been plenty of Congressional hearings on
this issue. In the construction field in particular, there
still are, in the small business community, the folks who talk
with me every day. They still are very, very troubled by the
confusion that exists over whether you are an employer or an
independent contractor and if something bad happens, who is
responsible?
The idea that withholding then become the responsibility of
the proprietor further blurs and confuses the distinction
between employer and independent contractor. It would be a
terrible way to go, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. The Commissioner agrees with you. It
took him 20 seconds to say so. It took you three minutes, but
that is okay.
The Office of Burden Reduction, how many employees are in
that?
Mr. Everson. It is not a large office. It is a highly
skilled office. I am not sure. Half a dozen, dozen people. Ten
people.
Chairman Manzullo. Ask him if he needs more people to help
reduce the burden of reduction.
Mr. Everson. I think you have done fine in asking the
question, sir. Let me tell you something though, Mr. Chairman.
What we did do here was in order to increase the prominence of
this effort. When Kevin took over from this business division,
we asked Mike to report directly to him so that it gets enough
prominence within that business unit. Those issues are
addressed on an ongoing basis. I think that has helped this
area.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you very much for coming this
afternoon. Sorry we were running late. I appreciate the
testimony. I appreciate your candor. If we could get the second
panel ready.
Mr. Sullivan, is there somebody from your office that might
be able to stick around?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, I will.
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you. We will recess for about five
minutes until we can set up the table.
[Whereupon, a short recess was taken.]
Chairman Manzullo. We are starting our second panel. First
witness is John Satagaj, testifying on behalf of the Small
Business Legislative Council. We look forward to your
testimony.
The complete written statements will be made part of the
record, without objection and I will set the five-minute clock
here.
You need to push the button and then pull the--
Mr. Satagaj. I am used to talking without the microphone. I
don't need it normally.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SATAGAJ, SMALL BUSINESS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Mr. Satagaj. Mr. Chairman, it is great to be here. I am
John Satagaj. I am the President and General Counsel for the
Small Business Legislative Council, which is a coalition of
about 60 trade associations, all of which have common interests
that they represent the interest of small business.
For us, this comes down to a pretty simple equation in
regards to what needs to be done and what we can accomplish to
help small businesses.
Number one, we have got to simplify. We heard it here in
the first panel of testimony today about the need for
simplification. We think a lot of the problems that small
business has with Tax Codes and with complying has to do with
the complexity of the Code. So if we can simplify, we can solve
a lot of these problems.
Secondly, we need to educate. We are particularly concerned
about where things are going at the IRS in general and in the
small business sector in particular, as it relates to
education.
There is taxpayer education and communication. They call it
TEC, which has done a marvelous job. You talked today about
it--I think you used the hammer.
Representative Kelly used the boom. For me the metaphor is
the pendulum and the pendulum is coming right at small business
again. What is remarkable for me is how quickly the pendulum
has swung back.
In Washington terms, it has been like a nanosecond since we
recognized that there was a lot of burdens being imposed on
small business. That we were really aggravating the small
business taxpayer with the audits. That it was unfair and in
that nanosecond it switched back already to where we are coming
back to that.
We had eased off on it and now we are right back to the
point where we are very aggressively going to pursue small
businesses.
We needed to give taxpayer education more time. We haven't
given it enough time. We hear some rumors that over at the IRS
they are even cutting back further on taxpayer education.
Mr. Chairman, if you could see one of the cool sessions
that we are all involved in, in the small business community,
once every two months we get together in a session hosted on a
rotating basis by NFIB, the Chamber and SBLC.
Our partner is TEC at the IRS. We have a meeting every two
months. They bring in different folks. We talk about problems.
You should see all the material we are getting from them
that we then use for our members, but you can't change that
overnight. It takes time.
We are working hard. We are making a lot of progress. If
they are, in fact, diverting resources elsewhere instead of
that education, I fear we are going to lose everything we built
up when the pendulum was going our way. We are going to lose it
in a nanosecond and that is where we are right now.
For us, simplification is number one. Number two, taxpayer
education. We do those two things, we are going to do great.
The last thing I want to mention--I don't know if he has
come back in the room or not, you noted at the beginning that
Kevin Brown was going to stay for the entire--
Chairman Manzullo. Kevin's here.
Mr. Satagaj. Kevin's here. He has come back in the room. He
is behind me. I want to mention, because you know you don't get
too many chances to say, you got a friend at the IRS. I can
tell you I have had my share of non-friends at the IRS. This is
a good person for small business running that section.
Chairman Manzullo. The record will note your friendship.
Mr. Satagaj. Good friendship. Maybe I won't get audited
next year if I am lucky. But it is important to have somebody
there who understands small business and Kevin does do that. I
think he is a great asset for us to have over there.
With that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thank
you.
[Mr. Satagaj's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you.
Our next witness is Keith Hall. He runs the Tax Talk
service for the National Association of Self-Employed. He is a
resident of Texas, where he is also partner in Hall and Hughes,
a local accounting firm.
We look forward to your testimony, Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF KEITH HALL, HALL AND HUGHES
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today, both as a small
business owner and as a member of the National Association for
the Self-Employed.
I hope to provide a small business owner's perspective on
the existing tax gap and various proposals for reducing that
tax gap.
Through the NASE Tax Talk service, I help answer over 8,000
questions every year from small business owners across the
country. I think that gives me a unique opportunity to share
the small business perspective.
A vast majority of the questions that we answer are based
on some specific complexity in the Tax Code. For example, many
small business owners operate out of their home, but they are
intimidated by a very complicated home office deduction form.
Most use their personal vehicle in operating their
business, but are confused regarding that deduction as well.
Some hear that they can fully deduct the cost of their
vehicle, but only if it weighs over a certain number of pounds.
Then they find out that there is a different set of rules for
SUVs and then still a different set if it is purchased before
October 22 or after October 22.
Now these issues directly contribute to the tax gap, since
the small business owner doesn't know what they owe. That leads
to incorrect estimated tax payments, late filing of returns and
late payment of tax that is due.
It is my opinion that the number one reason for
noncompliance among small business owners is the complexity of
the Tax Code.
Further, I believe that reducing that complexity will lead
directly to increased compliance and therefore a reduced tax
gap.
There are a number of other proposals, besides reducing
complexity, that have been proposed. As mentioned earlier, the
National Taxpayer Advocate has proposed withholding
requirements on payments made to independent contractors.
This is the most troubling of any proposals so far for the
small business owner. First, by adding another level of
reporting and complexity, another level of potential
noncompliance is also added.
But more importantly, withholding based solely on gross
payments disregards the expenses that are incurred to generate
those gross payments.
Consider an independent painter of office space who has a
$5,000 contract. They have no employees but do all the work
themselves.
After the cost of paint and supplies, they may have about
$4,000 in gross profit. Withholding five percent right off the
top, about $250, may make some sense, but what about a second
painter who uses other contractors or employees to do the work?
They may have only a ten percent gross profit or about $500
in taxable income. Withholding the same $250 straight off the
top represents a 50 percent withholding on their taxable
income. Treating those two small business owners the same just
doesn't make sense.
Further, the current proposal would only apply to sole
proprietors. A painter who happens to operate as a corporation
would not be subject to the requirement. The same painter, the
same issues, the same headaches would have a different set of
rules solely based on business structure.
Another proposal is based on increased IRS enforcement.
This proposal does have merit. Those taxpayers who willfully
disregard their tax liability should be held accountable.
I certainly support efforts to make sure they are held
accountable. My concern is at what cost? The Commissioner
mentioned, and has mentioned before, that he believes that
service plus enforcement equals compliance. My concern is that
budget dollars added to enforcement might be taken away from
service.
The complexity of the Tax Code clearly contributes heavily
to noncompliance, especially for the small business owner. Over
the last several years, the IRS has done a tremendous job in
providing service to the small business taxpayer.
Their website is unparalleled in depth of information and
ease of navigation. Their commitment to developing
comprehensive publications to address complex tax issues has
been unbelievable and I truly believe that their commitment has
made a real difference.
Diverting the attention of the IRS to enforcement, at the
cost of service, would be devastating.
Another option is to increase the level of compliance data
and the efforts to review that data. As a professional
accountant, I always think it is a good idea to look at the
numbers.
Knowing which taxpayers are noncompliant, whether
intentional or unintentional, can only improve efforts to
increase compliance, therefore reducing the tax gap.
However, the data can only be effectively analyzed in
connection with the why related to that noncompliance. It is my
concerted opinion that the why is in fact the complexity of the
Tax Code itself.
Tax compliance and its effect on the tax gap is clearly a
significant issue. However, efforts to close that gap and
reclaim missing revenue must be based on balanced and equitable
measures.
I believe that these efforts should avoid adding new levels
of complexity, but instead focus on overall simplification of
the Tax Code.
Most taxpayers want to comply with tax laws and pay their
fair share. Simplifying the Code will give them the ability to
do that.
Thanks again for the opportunity to be here.
[Mr. Hall's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you.
Our next witness is Abraham Schneier. Mr. Schneier is a tax
consultant for the National Federation of Independent
Businesses and a certified financial planner.
I look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ABRAHAM SCHNEIER, ABRAHAM SCHNEIER & ASSOCIATES
Mr. Schneier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee. My name is Abraham Schneier and I am a tax
consultant to the National Federation of Independent Business
and a self-employed business owner.
On behalf of the 600,000 members of NFIB, I appreciate the
opportunity to offer views on the tax gap and to express the
concerns of small business owners over IRS attempts to address
this gap.
Let me first state that NFIB does not defend or attempt to
rationalize that portion of the tax gap that is created by
willful violation of our tax laws.
Clearly, the tax gap is caused by different factors and
NFIB agrees with others that tax complexity continues to be
responsible for a significant portion of the tax gap.
As Nina Olson, Taxpayer Advocate for the IRS, stated in her
testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on April 14,
``Tax law complexity provides gray areas and loopholes for
taxpayers who are not trying to comply. Complexity also trips
up taxpayers who are trying to comply. It is just too hard to
figure out what the law requires and honest efforts to comply
can result in a gotcha situation.''
Since the Commissioner was kind enough to mention some of
my testimony, I figure it is only right that I mention some of
his previous testimony.
At the same hearing, the Commissioner said, ``The tax gap
does not arise solely from tax evasion or cheating. It includes
a significant amount of noncompliance, due to complexity of the
tax laws that results in ignorance, confusion and carelessness.
We do not have sufficient good data to help us know how much of
the tax gap arises from willfulness, as opposed to innocent
mistakes.''
We have heard both Commissioner Everson and Tom Sullivan
from SBA's Office of Advocacy talk about the cost of compliance
to the government. But there is also a heavy cost to the small
business owner, in terms of the cost of advice that he is
required to obtain on a regular basis, in terms of the cost of
not knowing whether he or she is doing the right thing.
Too often they get tripped up on footfalls and too often
they get tripped on just not knowing that there is a certain
requirement coming.
Granted some of them do get into difficulties because of
financial issues and at that time, you certainly don't want to
be in debt to the IRS, which unfortunately too often can
happen.
But we seriously believe that the tax gap is being driven
in a major portion by the complexity. In that regard, I would
like to echo some of John Satagaj's thoughts about the efforts
of the small business, self-employed and the TEC division, in
terms of the outreach and the communications that has been
going on with the small business community over the last
several years.
It has been a long time since small business has had the
opportunity to have input on the front end of items that were
going to come out before the small business community. That has
been a major benefit of having this regular communications.
Too often we hear this is what you have to do and maybe we
can't change that, but on a more regular basis we were having
an opportunity to have input on the front end on new forms that
were going to be put forward and on new rules.
I guess probably the best example is maybe the cash method
of accounting changes that we all worked on so hard several
years ago.
There is an increased reliance as well on technology, which
I think we have to be a little concerned about. NFIB does
regular surveys of its members on a variety of issues and
despite everything we read in the news, not all taxpayers,
which includes small business owners, use or are comfortable
with computer technology.
17 percent of small employers are not even on the Internet.
The issue is not just relevant to those who are not on the
Internet. Many questions simply require talking to a real
person who can sometimes ask the appropriate follow up question
that will lead to a correct answer.
Sometimes the taxpayer will call up Taxpayer Service and
ask a particular question or look up something on the Internet.
Unless he has a live person on the other end who can maybe ask
a follow up question to really help him get to the kernel of
the issue, he is going to come up with the wrong answer more
often than not or come up with no answer, which can also lead
to unfortunate events.
Recently NFIB asked a sample of small employers if they had
contacted government to learn about or clarify an existing rule
or obligation, such as a tax rule.
60 percent indicated that they had. Of that number, only
five percent said that their primary means of contact was the
Internet. The most frequent was by telephone.
It is highly likely that the proportion using the Internet
and using it effectively will increase, but to the extent that
reliable, readily accessible and easily understandable
information reduces the tax gap, mismatches between the way
IRS--
Chairman Manzullo. Mr. Schneier, I am going to cut you off
here. I want to get this testimony and we have got a bunch of
votes and a big fight going on, on the floor. I am going to cut
you off right there and go to our next witness, Mr. Steinberg.
Mr. Schneier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Mr. Schneier's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. I look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LEONARD STEINBERG, THE STEINBERG GROUP
Mr. Steinberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Manzullo. I am going to reduce your time to four
minutes. I just want to get everybody in and get this
completed, because we may be gone for an hour, an hour and a
half on a floor fight.
Mr. Steinberg. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it very much and I will be as brief as possible.
Chairman Manzullo. If you could move the mike closer to
you, Mr. Steinberg. Thank you.
Mr. Steinberg. Thank you, sir. I am here to talk about the
how and why of the tax gap and although everyone has talked
about the complexity of the tax gap, I will give you a classic
example.
There are some people that will form a business as a
limited liability corporation. According to the IRS rules, if
you are a single person limited liability corporation, you are
considered a sole proprietor.
If you are a two-person limited liability corporation, you
are considered a partnership. These kinds of complexity drives
small business people nuts, because they really don't
understand the difference in the type of organizations that
they are really forming.
Another reason for the tax gap is the effect of the
alternative minimum tax. Although this is not a hearing on the
alternative minimum tax, many small business owners and self-
employed individuals will intentionally underreport their
income in order to specifically avoid the AMT. This is
accomplished by not reporting all cash transactions and by not
reporting all income derived from other sources.
The AMT is specifically devastating to those small business
owners and taxpayers who live in high tax states, such as New
York, my home state of New Jersey, California and
Massachusetts.
Another reason for the tax gap is operating a cash
business. As an example, a small business owner may operate a
pizzeria. The store is open six days per week from Tuesday
through Sunday.
The business has been in the same location for many years
and though the ownership has changed twice, the business has a
wonderful reputation.
On very busy days, the owner and helpers prepare pizzas and
other foods as quickly as they can. Orders are phoned in.
Customers come to pick up their orders.
The people behind the counter do not have either the time
or the proximity to get to the cash register in order to record
the sale. The cash is held and then placed in the register at
the end of the busy period and each cash sale is not accurately
reported.
So the mathematics of this non-reported cash will work as
follows: If there are five unreported transactions with a value
of $10 each day, the total amount of unreported sales
transactions will equal $15,600 for a year, based on a six-day
week for 52 weeks.
If the money goes into the owner's pockets, that is $15,600
of unreported income and there is also an effect on state and
local sales tax.
Another reason for the tax gap is that many people do not
understand the tax laws. As an example, I had a case of a
client who did not understand why he could not expense his
entire franchise fee.
His franchise fee was $40,000. Why can't I expense it? I
had to explain to him that it has to be amortized over 15
years, over the life of the business.
Here again, the franchisor received the $40,000, which is
claimed as income, but the franchisee can only take a portion
of it.
Lastly, I would like to talk about unenrolled preparers. I
know Nina Olson has talked about this. This is a pernicious
affect on unreported income. There are unscrupulous, unenrolled
preparers who will prepare tax returns and take undue
deductions and not claim all the income for the people. I know
my time is almost up.
So I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity.
[Mr. Steinberg's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hegt, we look forward to your testimony. I am sorry
about the rushed up time. Please.
STATEMENT OF RONALD HEGT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
Mr. Hegt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The AICPA thanks you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. I am Ron Hegt, a
member of the AICPA Tax Executive Committee.
The AICPA is the national professional organization of
CPA's comprised of more than 350,000 members, many of whom
provide services to America's small businesses.
It is from this broad base of experience that we offer our
comments today. The AICPA has long been an advocate for tax
simplification. Small business in particular needs advocates to
collect and voice their concerns about the burdens imposed on
them.
We are committed to helping make our tax system as simple
and as fair as possible. Unfortunately, we believe that the
law's complexity in certain key areas may be strangling
voluntary compliance.
The lack of deliberation in the legislative process, the
frequent law changes in recent years and the increasing
magnitude and complexity of the Internal Revenue Code creates
serious compliance issues for small businesses.
The end result is the erosion of voluntary compliance. By
and large, small businesses obey the law, but it is only human
to inadvertently disobey a law if you do not or cannot
understand the rules.
The dynamic American economy is changing and moving rapidly
against an unnecessarily cumbersome income tax system. The
AICPA has long understood the consequences of tax law
complexity and has supported efforts to move toward a simple
system.
More recently, the AICPA has developed three tax policy
concept statements guiding principles for good tax policy,
guiding principles for tax simplification and guiding
principles for tax law transparency, which are intended to aid
in the development of tax legislation in a direction that we
believe is in the public interest.
Simplification must be given a prominent position in the
tax process on an ongoing basis. Although it should not take
precedence over revenue and tax policy objectives,
simplification must be an integral part of the tax legislative
regulatory and administrative process.
We recognize that a tax system that is simple for all
taxpayers may never be designed, but we do believe a simpler
system is attainable.
For a number of years we have joined our professional
colleagues from the ABA tax section and the Tax Executive
Institute in this simplification effort.
We have, on many of occasions, submitted simplification
recommendations to Congress, which specifically address a
number of issues that add to the difficulties small businesses
have in complying with the tax laws.
Some of these suggestions have particular interest to small
businesses include eliminating the alternative minimum tax,
clarification in worker classification area, developing
objective, administrable tests relating to capitalization,
expensing and recovery of capitalized costs, simplifying
capital gains provisions and rationalizing estimated tax safe
harbors.
In addition, we suggest allowing small business start ups
an additional tool to successfully navigate their start up life
cycle by providing the flexibility to adopt any fiscal year
from April through November.
The AICPA supported the Small Business Tax Flexibility Act
of 2003, HR 3225, which would have increased small business
prospects for survival.
Moving to another area, I would like to address two
critical topics. One, how the IRS can help taxpayers in its own
enforcement efforts through administrative simplification and
two, how the IRS can leverage its external stakeholders to
achieve a more highly compliant tax population.
We are well aware of the substantial decline in the number
of income tax return examinations conducted by the Service in
recent years.
We support the Service's efforts to reverse this trend by
hiring new revenue agents and implementing a number of
administrative simplification measures within its four
operating divisions.
Over the years, the AICPA has urged full funding of the IRS
budget and continues such support. Commissioner Everson
recognized that any increase in enforcement funding must be
balanced with positive responses to the taxpaying public, his
customers. We encourage--
Chairman Manzullo. I have to enforce the clock, which I
can't stop.
[Mr. Hegt's statement may be found in the appendix.]
Chairman Manzullo. What I would ask is this: I am going to
formally end the hearing. I will come back personally and we
will have about a 20-minute or so town meeting so the people
here can ask questions and we can get more input from you,
especially those of you that have traveled far distances.
The stenographer would be excused, because at this point
the hearing is formally adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Committee meeting was
adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]